Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Alexander Garrow, esquire, Member for Glasgow, Pollok, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PETITION

Shrewsbury (Road)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Mr. Speaker, I desire to present a Petition signed by 3,400 of my constituents asking that the Corporation of the Borough of Shrews-bury he restrained from proceeding with the building of a road between Meole Brace and Abbey Foregate, both places being within the borough.
The six reasons for their objection are clearly laid out in the Petition. The petitioners feel that this is, above all, a matter on which they should have been consulted and have not been so consulted. I am aware that a plan exists for a future road system in the Borough of Shrewsbury, though no one knows at present what its contents are. I hope that when this road plan is published it will show that my constituents' worst fears have not been realised. The Petition ends with the words:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION)

Mrs. McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will now announce their decision on ratification of the United Nations' Convention on the Political Rights of Women.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): Her Majesty's Government have decided that, with certain reservations, the United Kingdom can accede to this Convention. They aim to arrange accession early next year.

Mrs. McKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that her announcement will give great pleasure to this House and to all women's organisations in particular? Will she please give this matter the widest possible publicity?

Mrs. White: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Mrs. McKay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what preparations have been made in his Department to assure full United Kingdom participation in the United Nations Year for Human Rights, in 1968.

Mrs. White: In addition to the details given in my reply to the hon. Lady on 9th May, Her Majesty's Government have now offered an initial contribution of £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for Human Rights Year which has been set up under the Chairmanship of Bishop Joost de Blank. A further contribution may be considered at a later stage. [Vol. 728, c. 16.]

Mrs. McKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of nations look to Britain as an historic champion of human rights? Will she ensure that our contribution to Human Rights Year is commensurate with this traditional rôle?

Mrs. White: Yes, I certainly hope it will be, and various appropriate actions are now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GERALD BROOKE

Sir R. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he made to the Soviet authorities, during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, about their treatment of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): On my discussions in Moscow I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 5th December. The British Consul in Moscow saw Mr. Brooke on 9th December and reported that his morale was good. We are continuing to discuss with the Soviet Government various questions relating to Mr. Brooke's imprisonment.—[Vol. 737, c. 206.]

Sir R. Cary: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his efforts in obtaining a modification of Russian policy in regard to Mr. Gerald Brooke? Will he also convey, on behalf of a number of hon. Members of this House, our thanks to the British Consul, Miss Agnes Wood, for her intelligent concern in the matter of this detention, concern which reflects great credit on the mission that she serves?
Dare I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say a word about the receipt of parcels? I know that this collides with prison regulations and may be beyond the powers of anybody even as powerful as Mr. Kosygin, but the receipt of even the smallest parcel is an unimaginable blessing to a lonely man in a Russian prison camp——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This supplementary is getting rather long.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about our Consul, and I shall be delighted to convey his remarks to her. She has a very difficult job to do and it is a pleasure to hear that sort of remark.
On the question of parcels, Mr. Brooke told Miss Wood that he had received two parcels from his wife and one parcel of books from the embassy. I have a suspicion that this does, in fact, exceed what the regulations, strictly interpreted, might have allowed. But there are other things we want to do, if we can, with the Russians to get Mr. Brooke's position improved, quite apart, of course, from trying to get him released. This we shall go on doing.

Mr. Blaker: Is not the recent visit by the British Consul the first that has been allowed for eight months or more? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not good enough? Do not the accepted international conventions require that the Consul should be allowed to visit Mr. Brooke regularly and frequently, and will the right hon. Gentleman press for that?

Mr. Brown: The Consular Convention has not as yet been ratified. The Labour Camp Regulations, I understand, as they stand at the moment, allow only one meeting a year. I do not think it would do us any harm—it might do Mr. Brooke some good—if we were to recognise that the Russians relented in order to allow the visit to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has had from Middle Eastern countries about Great Britain's proposed withdrawal from Aden; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on 10th November.—[Vol. 735, c. 350.]

Mr. Marten: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the proposal to withdraw from Aden is an act of real bad faith which lets down our friends and creates a very dangerous situation in that area? If the Foreign Secretary cannot himself get there, can he give an undertaking that no British troops will be withdrawn from Aden until the last of the 60,000 Egyptians are withdrawn from the Yemen?

Mr. Brown: I do not accept the first part of the supplementary question and I am certainly against the third.

Lord Balniel: Can the Foreign Secretary say what consideration he has given to the views repeatedly put forward from these benches that some form of air defence must be provided until the South Arabian Federation can maintain its independence by its own efforts?

Mr. Brown: I believe that there are Questions later on that very point. But, as I made clear the other day to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), our proposal for helping the Federation after 1968 includes provision for an air component.

Mr. Whitaker: In regard to that area, would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is best to encourage the spending of money on social progress rather than on an arms race; secondly, that we support democratically elected States and not feudal sheikhdoms; and, thirdly, that we work for the United Nations to be responsible for getting peace in that area rather than our own arms?

Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that it is quite impossible to provide what he calls an air component which would be able to provide air defence against the Egyptians between now and 1968, and does he not realise that he is creating a power vacuum in South Arabia which will merely invite Egyptian military intervention and subversion?

Mr. Brown: I also know that when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister he was very much against our undertaking to provide forces for any conceivable military operations all over the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN STATES (MAINTENANCE OF PEACE)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will arrange for the raising in the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace the existence of training camps and military and para-military missions in certain African States for the subversion of, and

armed aggression against, other African States and territories, contrary to the United Nations Charter.

Mrs. White: It is primarily for any country which considers itself threatened to raise the matter in the Security Council.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged for that Answer, but will the right hon. Lady agree that those camps and missions exist not merely for the overthrow of régimes in Southern Africa but also the overthrow of régimes in black Africa? Is that not a real threat to peace, which Rhodesia is not?

Mrs. White: Her Majesty's Government of course subscribe to the principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States. We consider, as I said in my original Answer, that if any country considers itself to be threatened it is for it to take up the matter with the Security Council, and not for us to interfere.

Mr. Goodhew: Since the Government still insist that this country is still responsible for Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia is not a sovereign State, will the right hon. Lady now call upon the Government to move in the United Nations on this line?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Goodhew: If the right hon. Lady is not certain what I am saying, I am asking her—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Archer, Question No. 6.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIA (BOWEN REPORT)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now intends to publish the report of Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., relating to detention procedures in Aden.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will no publish Mr. Roderic Bowen's Report on Aden.

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking as a result of the report supplied to him by Mr. Bowen on the treatment of detainees in Aden.

Mr. George Brown: I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.

Mr. Rose: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which persons were interviewed by Mr. Bowen during his recent investigations into the treatment of prisoners and detainees in Aden.

Mr. George Brown: I have arranged for the list, which is rather long to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Rose: What has happened to the five interrogators who were removed from Aden shortly after these allegations?

Mr. Brown: I ask my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, to await the statement which I shall be making after Questions.

Mr. Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the Arab professional organisations declined to give evidence before Mr. Bowen on the grounds that my right hon. Friend's Department had committed itself in advance to a denial of the allegations and, secondly, that certain wives of detainees were prevented from seeing Mr. Bowen? Is he still open to receive evidence on this?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that that will be supported by the list which has been made available, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads it. I suggest that he waits until he has read the list.

Following is the information—

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED BY MR. RODERIC BOWEN, Q.C., DURING HIS ENQUIRY INTO DETENTION PROCEDURES IN ADEN.

The High Commissioner.
Deputy High Commissioner. R. H. J. Thorne.
A Deputation of relatives of detainees.
S. N. Iyer, Q.C. Member of Review Tribunal.
R. H. Hickling. Legal Adviser.
Dr. C. R. Jones. Permanent Secretary and Director of Health Services.
A. L. Asnag. Member of Review Tribunal.
—Duqmi and others. President and Members of the Civil Aviation Workers Union.

—Suqi and others. President and Members of the General Union of Petroleum Workers.
C. G. Doyle. Chief Magistrate and Chairman of Review Tribunal.
R. J. Holmes, Q.C. Advocate General.
J. V. Prendergast. Director of Intelligence.
Dr. Rochat. International Committee of the Red Cross.
M. J. Maloney, Q.C. Attorney General, Aden State.
A. C. W. Lee. Senior Adviser (Security).
Lt. Colonel Odell. Director, Army Legal Services.
Brigadier Kyte. Brigadier A/Q.
A. J. Ashworth. Information Adviser.
F. Russell. Commandant, Interrogation Centre.
Adil Khalifa. Detainee.

During his visit to the Interrogation Centre he spoke to the Staff, the visiting Medical Officer, and each one of the inmates in his cell. During one visit to the Detention Centre he spoke to members of the staff. He was informed that the detainees had dealt with all the matters they wished to raise in the detailed Memorandum they had submitted and that none of them wished to see him personally. He requested to see the detainee who he understood had drawn up the Memorandum and who spoke English fluently (Mr. Khalifa). He interviewed Mr. Khalifa who confirmed that none of the detainees wished to be interviewed personally and were satisfied that all the matters they wished to raise were covered in the Memorandum.

Mr. Bowen would like to make it clear that he made it known on his arrival in Aden that he was willing and anxious to see anyone who considered he could be of help to him in performing his task. A number of organizations* and individuals indicated that they preferred to submit a Memorandum and did so.

In addition to the above Mr. Bowen had many informal discussions with a number of residents in Aden, both Adenis and others.

*The Arab Jurists' Union.

The Graduates' Congress.

The Arab Economists' Union.

Arab Doctors' Union.

The Civil Service Association of South Arabia.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE DOCUMENTS (SECURITY)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what investigation he made in Moscow of methods of handling files at the British Embassy.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is


satisfied with the standard of security in Her Majesty's diplomatic missions overseas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether authentic copies of the following treaties are still in possession of the Foreign Office, namely the Treaty of Utrecht, the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the Treaty of Versailles, and the Treaty of Sevres.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the disappearance of certain documents relating to the Zinoviev Affair, the Hoare-Laval Pact and the Munich Agreement.

Mr. George Brown: In answering the four Questions together, I apologise for the fact that my Answer must therefore be a little longer than I normally like to give.
I have been concerned about the method of handling files in the Foreign Office and in missions abroad. Following a review which has been in progress for some time, I have instituted certain changes in procedure which will I think offer an improvement.
All the documents referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) are in the Public Record Office.
The file relating to the Zinoviev affair contains our original copy of the Zinoviev letter itself together with the texts of the final versions of the communications arising out of it which passed with M. Rakowski. It is in respect of the letter to M. Rakowski of 24th October that the file is deficient. Two copies of the letter existed, differing only in their signature. This was made plain in 1927 in the corrigendum slip to the White Paper Command 2895. We have the copy with the incorrect signature; the other, and the, operative draft, are both missing.
The Hoare Laval Agreement was never concluded but the Foreign Office working papers are in the Public Record Office. The authenticated copy of the English text of the Munich Agreement is also in the Public Record Office.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Foreign Secretary for answering a Question that I for one did not ask him. May I revert to the Question that was on the Order

Paper about his investigation of a security file in Moscow during his visit to Moscow? While I accept that it is right for the Foreign Secretary to check up on sloppiness and security lapses, can he say how this matter was made public in Moscow? Is it not very much better if one is checking up on security matters to keep quiet about it?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member would like to read his Question again. It says nothing about security in Moscow. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of course it does."] The Question is what investigation the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made in Moscow of methods of handling files. [An HON. MEMBER: "At the British Embassy."] What else could it be in Moscow but the British Embassy? I answered the Question in the form in which the hon. Gentleman put it down. I am quite willing to believe that he intended to put down a different Question, but I answered the one he asked and I I said that I was not satisfied. I was concerned. Having been concerned, apparently unlike my predecessors I made an investigation. I have therefore now also taken action to improve the situation.

Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to my hon. Friend's supplementary question? Would he not agree that in cases of this kind no useful purpose is served if the matter becomes public knowledge?

Mr. Brown: Anybody who is responsible for an organisation of this size, whether it is business, trade union or Government, knows that at any stage if one is to get one's views carried all the way down one must make them clear all the way down. That is what I am doing.

Mr. Foot: While we are all very concerned that there should be proper handling of the files at the British Embassy in Moscow, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that we are even more concerned about interference by the Central Office of the Conservative Party with the files in this country of the Foreign Office? While we appreciate that my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the loss of these documents and are very grateful that he is carrying out an investigation at long last, may we ask him


to take into account that we are very much concerned about what happened on the Zinoviev letter and the fact that Foreign Office officials may have been operating against the interests of the Government at that time? Will he make a full investigation into that matter and report to the House?

Mr. Brown: I thought that I had answered it clearly in my reply, but let me again make one thing clear. The Zinoviev letter, the copy of which came to the Foreign Office in 1924, is still there. It has never been missing, and some very fanciful stories which I read over the weekend could never have been written if the facts had been checked.

Mr. Dickens: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend undertake to carry out an investigation into allegations that the Zinoviev letter itself was a forgery, and will he extend the investigation to include the possibility of collusion in October, 1924, between the Foreign Office and members of the party opposite during that critical General Election? Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a lot of important Questions on the Order Paper. We must be brief.

Mr. Brown: Authenticity of the Zinoviev letter does not really arise on these Questions. On the other hand, without attributing any wrong motives to anybody present today, I am not at all surprised that the Conservative Central Office thought it worth paying £5,000 for a document in 1924.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that this record of absolute unscrupulous villainy on the part of the Central Office of the Conservative Party, when £5,000 was paid for a forgery—these are grave disclosures—does not rest there?

Mr. Brown: One of the reasons why I have taken pains to look carefully into the way in which we handle our affairs is to see that we, unlike our predecessors, do not lose interesting documents.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Whatever may be the history of this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary acquit the Foreign Office of any collusion with any political party?

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question about the authenticity of the letter and about what happened in those days—it is not on the Order Paper today—I shall be very happy to give him an Answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNCIL OF EUROPE (COMMITTEE ON NON-REPRESENTED NATIONS)

Mr. John Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions he has given to his deputy at the Council of Ministers at Strasbourg about continuing support for the Committee on Non-Represented Nations.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): This is a Committee of the Consultative Assembly and it is for the Assembly itself to decide whether the Committee is still needed.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government are not seeking to dodge out of any obligations which they have to the smaller oppressed countries of Eastern Europe?

Mr. Padley: I should not wish to intervene in a matter which is the concern of the Assembly and not of the Council of Ministers.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Gentleman and his deputy at Strasbourg, if necessary, that what the Assembly of the Council of Europe does about these matters has nothing whatever to do with the Ministers?

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER (CONVERSATIONS)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with the Japanese Foreign Minister.

Mr. George Brown: The Japanese Foreign Minister visited this country from 28th October to 2nd November. I had two most useful talks with Mr. Shiina, who also called on the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. The joint communiqué records the very friendly relations existing between Britain and Japan and our growing co-operation in the fields of diplomacy and commerce.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Foreign Secretary keep up the regular series of visits which have done so much in the last five years to improve relations between our two countries, and, if he does, could he co-ordinate our efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement in the Vietnam dispute?

Mr. Brown: There are Questions about Vietnam later, and perhaps that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question could wait until then. On the first part, yes, most certainly. The next meeting is due to take place in Japan, and I look forward to it very much indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (CHINESE REPRESENTATION)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what study he has made of the letter from the Eastern Regional Officer of the United Nations Association on the admission of Mainland China to the United Nations; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. George Brown: I have carefully studied the points raised in this letter. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the very full reply which I have sent.

Mr. Roberts: Would it not be a major contribution to world harmony if America supported China's admission to the United Nations, and will my right hon. Friend undertake to make yet another appeal to the Americans to wake up to the fact that it is now 1966 and not 1946?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend must recognise from what happened at the meeting this year that the thing goes a good deal wider now than just the United States. The vote this year was altogether different from last year, which suggests that a lot of other people need to have this explained to them, too.

Following is the reply:

Foreign Office,

30 November, 1966.

Thank you for your letter of 22 November about Chinese representation at the United Nations.

I hope that the speeches I made in Brighton and New York will leave no doubt in any-

body's mind that Her Majesty's Government believe it to be a matter of great importance that the Chinese People's Republic should be seated in the United Nations, and that I am doing everything I can to bring this about. I am firmly convinced that the United Nations cannot be truly effective without universal membership. This means that Peking too must be represented, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement with her policies and know perfectly well that she will be hard to live with. It is not of course certain that she would take the seat even if voted in.

We have voted in favour of Peking since the question was first put in its present form in 1961: and we shall continue to do so. I can see the arguments for saying that this is only a procedural matter, as your Committee believe. On the other hand, the balance of argument seems to me to lead to the conclusion that it is hard to say that this is not an important question. I am strengthened in this view by the evidence from the last vote that opinions in the United Nations are sharply divided on this matter. The best solution, I am sure, would be to convince the large majority of members of the United Nations of the wisdom of voting in favour of seating Peking. There would then be a decisive vote and no one could later challenge it. This must be our objective and this is what we are working for during the present debate.

(Signed) (GEORGE BROWN.)

B. Hembry, Esq.,

Regional Officer,

U.N. Association,

Eastern Regional Council,

15 Bridge Street,

Cambridge.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the proposals of the United States mediator, Mr. Webster, with regard to the future relationship of British Honduras and Guatemala.

Mr. Padley: No, Sir.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm the undertaking previously given by the former Foreign Secretary that, as soon as these proposals are complete, they will be announced to the House and debated in Belize, and can he give an idea when this is likely to be?

Mr. Padley: I reaffirm the assurance given by my right hon. Friend some months ago, but it will be for the mediator to make his own report in his own time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received a reply from the Spanish Government to his proposal to refer the legal issues in the Gibraltar dispute to the International Court.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of direct Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar and current discussions at the United Nations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the Spanish Government a reply to his proposal to refer British sovereignty over Gibraltar to The Hague Court.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has now received from the Spanish Government about the reference of the Gibraltar question to the International Court.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been received from the Spanish Government to the proposal to refer the Gibraltar question to the International Court.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, now that the Spanish Government has notified Her Majesty's Government of their refusal to allow Gibraltar's sovereignty and related issues to be submitted to the Hague Court, he will make a statement with particular reference to continuing Anglo-Spanish talks while present frontier restrictions continue.

Mr. George Brown: On 14th December, the Spanish Government informed us that they were unable to accept our proposal. Her Majesty's Government regret this negative reaction.
The Spanish documents, which also made suggestions for further negotiations, are under study in the light of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and a reply will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after the somewhat discourteous delay of over two months in

replying to our offer, the Spanish Government have now publicly admitted the weakness of their legal case, and that this should encourage us to continue to sustain the people of Gibraltar as far as we possibly can?

Mr. Brown: Yes, most certainly; and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he has, in view of the attacks which were made on me by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends a little while ago.

Mr. Jeger: Will my right hon. Friend inform the United Nations and the Spanish Government that we are ready to resume talks with Spain on any subject as soon as they withdraw their barbaric restrictions from the Spain-Gibraltar frontier?

Mr. Brown: I think that the right thing for me to do now is to say that we are considering the Spanish reply. My hon. Friend will have noted the interesting and significant resolution which was voted by the United Nations last night.

Mr. Wall: Now that Gibraltar has been undergoing a blockade for two years, what action does the Foreign Secretary intend to take to prevent this blockade being continued for another two years?

Mr. Brown: I have said that we shall support the Gibraltarians through it all, and we are doing that.

Mr. Digby: Why did the British delegate on the Trusteeship Committee vote on Saturday in favour of continuing negotiations regardless of duress?

Mr. Brown: Because the resolution, for the first time at the United Nations, so far as I recall, made clear that the interest of the inhabitants was paramount.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the best way to get the restrictions on the Gibraltar border lifted to make clear to the Spanish Government that there will be no negotiations of any sort until they are lifted?

Mr. Brown: I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Now that the Spanish Government have refused, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the


advisability of cancelling the validity of passports to Spain?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir; I do not think that retaliation in this field will help.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH AMERICA, COMMON- WEALTH COUNTRIES AND EUROPE (FREE TRADE AREA)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to explore the possibilities of establishing a Free Trade Area between the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and other European Free Trade Association and Commonwealth countries.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir. The Government's policy is to work for entry into the European Economic Community provided essential British and Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the Foreign Secretary knows, I wish him every success in that venture, but would it not be as well to have some alternative ready in case the negotiations, unhappily, fail, and would not his hand be strengthened in the negotiations by the existence of this alternative?

Mr. Brown: As I said when I spoke in the debate on 16th November, there are other ways in which we could organise the future of Great Britain. I do not believe that any of them would be as good as this, but the hon. Gentleman may assume that we have taken account of them.

Mr. A. Royle: Was the right hon. Gentleman encouraged by his talks with General de Gaulle recently in view of the British application to start talks for joining the European Economic Community?

Mr. Brown: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent progress to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what attempts have been made recently to negotiate a just and peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

Mr. Orme: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made to bring about a negotiated settlement to end the war in Vietnam.

Mr. Michael Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent progress towards a negotiated settlement in Vietnam, particularly in view of the recent intensification of the bombing of Hanoi.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) on 12th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 11.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could the Foreign Secretary give the House a more detailed indication of what response his suggestions for a negotiated settlement received in Vietnam, and could he not use his influence to get the Russians to make a public statement—I emphasise the word "public"—on the issue as that might well transform the situation?

Mr. Brown: I am continuing the explorations which I undertook with both the American and the Russian Governments and, of course, elsewhere. In view of the delicacy of these talks, I hope that the House will excuse me from going any further.

Mr. Driberg: Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that progress towards peace or even towards a temporary truce is assisted by the bombing of Hanoi, and, if it is not the Government's view, will he make that clear to the Americans?

Mr. Brown: I have other Questions on the subject of bombing later today.

Mr. Orme: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with the proposal made by Senator Mansfield for a 47-day moratorium of the bombing and truce in Vietnam? Would he not agree that this would help to obtain the type of settlement that he is after?

Mr. Brown: I believe that I am inhibited by the rules of order from answering on Question No. 18 points which will arise on Question No. 31.

Mr. Foot: Can my right hon. Friend say, strictly on the question of the form of negotiations, whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to give unqualified support to the proposals of U Thant for the settlement of the Vietnam dispute?

Mr. Brown: I still think that, since I am engaged very closely and very much, and was indeed even last week in Paris, in talks about this, the House would really help me to achieve what it and my hon. Friend want to achieve if it excused me from public statements here today.

Mr. Goodhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country find it difficult to understand how it is that Rhodesia, which has made no threat to peace anywhere in the world, has action taken against it in the form of sanctions whereas, in the case of North Vietnam, which has been not merely a threat to peace but guilty of aggression, no such action is taken by the British Government?

Mr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed that question and so it must, therefore, be in order. But I find it very difficult to understand how a Question which asks me about what I am doing to get a settlement in Vietnam raises the question of a rebellion in Rhodesia.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, following his talks in Moscow, he will seek to arrange an early conference with the United States, Russian, Chinese and North Vietnamese Foreign Ministers in a new attempt to stop hostilities in Vietnam and make the Christmas truce permanent.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir. I am engaged in continuous efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam but, in present circumstances, I see no prospect of convening a conference of the sort suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Roberts: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the size of this problem and the fact that tens of millions of people all over the world are praying and hoping that this Christmas will see an end to a war, something could he gained by this? Would my right hon. Friend not further agree that Britain's rôle as a gunboat Power is now over but that she has a major contribution to make

to mankind as an intermediary and peace-maker?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that we have the latter rôle. I understand that the South Vietnamese Government and their allies have already agreed to a truce not only over Christmas but also over the New Year, including the Vietnamese New Year holiday. I regret to say that there has so far been no response to this offer from the other side.

Mr. Onslow: We are encouraged to hear of the part the South Vietnamese Government are playing. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if ever there was a conference of the sort called for in this Question, the South Vietnamese Government would be one of the most important parties to be represented?

Mr. Brown: That is the sort of question which would fall to be decided whenever we got a conference.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had, in the course of his recent visit to the United States of America, with United States Defence Secretary Macnamara regarding his official statement on the monthly average of bombs dropped in Vietnam in the second half-year of 1966; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Brown: I have had no such discussions with Mr. McNamara.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend know that while he was in the United States Mr. McNamara claimed that the monthly average of bombs dropped by United States aircraft on Vietnam in the second half of 1966 surpassed the quantity of bombs dropped all over Europe and Africa during the Second World War? Will my right hon. Friend associate Her Majesty's Government with the rising volume of protest at this mass murder of civilians?

Mr. Brown: I regret and resent the continuance of this war. However, my hon. Friend makes a very big mistake in picking out one side or the other for comment in this way. In any case, I have answered his Question by saying that I have not had any such discussions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the phrase "mass murder"? Is it not


a fact that the United States Air Force engaged in this war does its utmost to avoid mass murder?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making exactly the same mistake. The reason I want to do what I can to get this war halted, and ultimately solved, as quickly as I can is that at least I know that no war can go on without mass murder.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention, from the International Control Commission regarding the facts about the bombing by United States forces in Vietnam of schools, hospitals and churches in North Vietnam.

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent reports he has received from the International Control Commission on the United States bombing of schools, hospitals and the urban population of North Vietnam.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Control Commission set up under the 1954 Geneva Agreements, what information he has received from the Commission about the bombing by United States and South Vietnamese forces of schools, hospitals, temples, and homes in North Vietnam, including residential quarters in Hanoi.

Mr. George Brown: None, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that North Vietnam's sources say that United States bombing has destroyed 294 schools, 74 hospitals and 80 churches? Does he not agree that Pentagon sources say that in this respect North Vietnamese sources, when checkable, are generally found to be correct? Will he ask the United States Government to stop bombing until the International Control Commission has investigated and reported?

Mr. Brown: Of course I deplore the loss of life and I deplore it all the more if there have been civilian casualties. But the responsibility for this must rest with those who are prolonging the fighting, just as all opportunities for a just and reasonable settlement rest with them. The

United States assures us, and, I am certain, properly assures us, that it is attacking only military targets. However, so long as this war goes on, this kind of thing will happen. That is why I wish that Hanoi and those who might be able to influence Hanoi would respond to the kind of initiative which I have recently made myself to both sides.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend this afternoon make a clear public statement dissociating the British Government from the American bombing of the civilian population of Hanoi?

Mr. Brown: I do not believe that the American Government has done any such thing. I dissociate myself from those who will not use such influence as they might have to get the authorities in Hanoi to respond to the approach which I have already made.

Mr. Zilliacus: Do my right hon. Friend's replies mean that the Government have gone back on their undertaking to dissociate themselves from the bombing of Hanoi? Is it the position that the Americans are entitled to the mass murder of civilians by their bombing in order to force them into unconditional surrender or unconditional negotiations, which would be contrary to the Charter?

Mr. Brown: If the North Vietnamese and their allies continue to infiltrate vast numbers of troops and supplies and to breach the demilitarised zone, it would be wrong to attack those trying to arrest that. But I deplore both, and I would welcome the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to bring it to an end as the most sensible thing to do.

Mr. Goodhart: As we have a small diplomatic mission in Hanoi, can the Foreign Secretary say whether our representative there has been allowed to inspect the site and submit a report? If American planes have done extensive damage in Hanoi, would not one have expected our representative to send a report?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman may assume that I have had reports from not only that, but other quarters. I prefer to stand on what I have said.

Mr. Marten: Returning to the main issue, why does not the Foreign Secretary


as co-Chairman receive reports on just this sort of thing, and how can he act as co-Chairman without all this information?

Mr. Brown: Nothing I have said would lend any support to the idea that I do not receive reports on these things.

Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in an earlier statement the Prime Minister assured the House that the position of Her Majesty's Government was that it should not be the policy of the United States Air Force to bomb installations near population centres? While everybody would agree that there is an obligation on the Government of Hanoi, as on any other Government, to make peace, would he not now say that in the period at the beginning of negotiations the American Government should not bomb installations near Hanoi or Haiphong?

Mr. Brown: Not only privately as I have, but in public, the American Government has committed itself much further than anybody else on either side about what it would do to halt military action, provided that it had some idea that a reasonable response would be forthcoming. My answer to my hon. Friend is that we should all use our influence to get some reasonable response from the other side.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ridsdale. Question No. 33.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. When I asked a supplementary question on Question No. 18, which was answered together with my own Question No. 83, my right hon. Friend would not answer it because, he said, it would be out of order to do so as he had Questions on bombing coming. May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Driberg.

Mr. Driberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When my right hon. Friend speaks of the war effort of both sides as being roughly equal, is not that a little unrealistic? Is it not only one side which is bombing with napalm and other horrors?

Mr. Brown: Others are doing things which are horrible in their own way.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY (COST)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between Her Majesty's Government and the West German and United States Governments about the requirement for British and United States forces on the continent of Europe and the offsetting of the foreign Exchange costs of such forces.

Mr. George Brown: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made on 12th of December.—[Col. 44; Vol. 738.]

Mr. Blaker: When assessing how much of the foreign exchange costs of B.A.O.R. is being offset, is it the intention of the Government to take into account the foreign exchange which comes to this country as a result of the presence of American forces here?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I believe these two things to be quite separate. As I have told the Americans, and so have my right hon. Friends, we have a deficit all over the world arising out of the share of the burden—in some ways one might say a disproportionate share of the burden—of defending world peace that we bear. Therefore, I think that anything else that happens we are entitled to set against that. The question of the offsetting of the foreign exchange costs of our troops in Germany falls to be dealt with by itself.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many of us on these benches regard the offsetting agreement as utterly unacceptable as this is against the real determination that we have considered, as have others in the Government, would follow from securing an immediate reduction in these costs?

Mr. Brown: In that case, I can only think that my hon. Friend has not really looked at what has been achieved here. If one looks at the time scale in which the savings would come by any unilateral withdrawal of troops, it would not be as


advantageous to us as the present agreement. Secondly, if it is, as I believe it is, my hon. Friend's desire to maintain the cohesion of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to maintain our influence in that and on the Continent, I am sure he would agree that it would be far better to do it by agreement than to do it unnecessarily unilaterally.

Lord Balniel: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 9th August the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if there was not an offsetting of the total costs of British troops, they would be withdrawn? While we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the negotiations, may I ask whether he would not agree that a unilateral withdrawal of British troops, especially following the withdrawal of France from N.A.T.O., would considerably increase tension in Central Europe?

Mr. Brown: Whether that is true or not, it has to be understood, and I hope that it is—I explained it again last week to all our allies—that we cannot be expected to go on paying foreign exchange to meet a burden which is by no means wholly ours and is of great value to others. I should like to do this, of course, by agreement, and I hope that we can, but it must be very clear that what we have said has been that the offsetting for our foreign costs must be met. When the new German Government came into being a very short time ago, that, of course, made it inevitable that there was a certain slip in the time scale. I am hoping that the arrangement to which the Question refers has helped us over that.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Why have the Government broken undertakings given to Parliament on three occasions since 3rd May about British troop withdrawals, and, indeed, the promise that negotiations would be completed by this August? Is it because Washington regards the arrangements as a considerable diplomatic success for America?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has got it completely wrong. We have never given that assurance to Parliament on any occasion. What we have said is that if we are to maintain this level of forces, then the foreign exchange costs must be offset. We have deferred the date by

which that must be done in consideration of having received a series of orders from the Americans which, I repeat, more than meets—certainly they represent as much as—the savings that we could have got over the same period.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC CORPS

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he takes to keep himself informed of personnel changes in the Diplomatic Corps in London.

Mr. George Brown: I am kept informed by Diplomatic Representatives in London in accordance with the Vienna Convention.

Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if in future these arrangements should break down, as they appear to have done in the case of the Iranian Ambassador, it is in no one's interest that he should make a public scene about it?

Mr. Brown: There seem to be two different views among the Press. If I say nothing I am thought to be keeping silent unwarrantably. If I say anything, it disturbs the Press. The hon. Gentleman, a long way after the event, is really wasting the time of the House on a mere detail taken out of context and, like so many others, totally distorted.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST GERMAN CITIZENS (VISAS)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will review the present arrangements for East German citizens to obtain visas to enter Great Britain as visitors.

Mr. George Brown: Visa regulations are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The rules governing the issue of temporary travel documents for East Germans are regularly reviewed in the North Atlantic Council.

Mr. Winnick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for reviewing the arrangements whereby East German citizens have to come over to the western part of Britain?


Is he aware that people like myself, who hate the Berlin Wall and have told East German Communists so, believe that there is a case for reviewing the present arrangements?

Mr. Brown: As I said, the arrangements are regularly reviewed. I think it is time that the East Germans also reviewed some of the restrictions which they put on the West.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB STATES AND ISRAEL (BORDER CLASHES)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action Great Britain intends to take at the United Nations and elsewhere over the border clashes between Arab countries and Israel.

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy for reducing tension in the Middle East.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to help avoid further clashes between Israel and her Arab neighbours.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not altered their policy towards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 and that they still regard themselves bound by it.

Mr. Henig: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government still considers itself bound by the terms of the tri-partite declaration to guarantee the frontiers of Israel and her neighbours; and if he will now approach the Governments of France and the United States of America with a view to a further joint declaration that no resort to force to alter in either direction the present frontiers between the State of Israel and the neighbouring Arab States will be tolerated.

Mr. George Brown: Again I apologise for the inevitable length of the Answers.
We regard the United Nations as being primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace in the area. It is our policy to support the United Nations in fulfilling this task and to support every effort made to improve its peacekeeping machinery. As regards the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, it was, mainly, as its official title said, about the supply of arms to Israel and the Arab States. The situation in the area has radically altered since then; several years later, the Soviet Union became a major supplier of arms to the area. But today, as in 1950, we are opposed to an arms race in the Middle East and concerned that there should be peace and stability there. We deplore the use or the threat of force in the area, and subversion, hostile propaganda and terrorism, which have been condemned by many resolutions of the United Nations.

Mr. Winnick: While I appreciate in full the Answer that has been given, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can say what possibilites there are of reaching real agreement to control the supply of arms to the Middle East and especially the politically explosive places? Can he say whether we are still sending arms to both sides?

Mr. Brown: We are exercising all the influence we can in the United Nations to bring about a limitation not only of the arms race in that area but also of the tension there. As to the sale of arms, we are keeping them all under control and do nothing which will add to the tension.

Mr. Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are considering the possibility of extending the United Nations Observer Corps along the Syrian-Israeli frontier? Surely that is one way of keeping down tension.

Mr. Brown: That is a point worth bearing in mind, but it was not along that frontier that the recent trouble occurred.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: The right hon. Gentleman has made some comments about the 1950 Declaration. Do Her Majesty's Government still regard themselves as being bound by it?

Mr. Brown: The comments I have made were not only in accord with


what we have said but with what Mr. Harold Macmillan said in, I believe, 1963.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say categorically whether Britain will stand by her undertaking, given in concert with her allies, to guarantee the frontiers of Israel?

Mr. Brown: The situation has changed a good deal since the Tripartite Declaration was made and I repeat that Mr. Macmillan made a statement which superseded it. We have not gone beyond that.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Since the present arms race and the declaration of the Syrian Government that they will pay no regard to the United Nations are creating a most dangerous situation in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend try to promote a meeting at the highest level of the Security Council to secure radical arrangements for bringing this dangerous situation to an end?

Mr. Brown: Whether that is the appropriate forum, I do not know, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that I will do everything I can. As he knows, in the Security Council recently we played a very prominent part on this subject.

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman says that we are trying at the United Nations to assist in the reduction of tension. What specific initiative have the Government taken with the Soviet Union and the United States so as to secure a balanced limitation of arms in this area?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure that such a possibility exists. There are other causes of the difficulties in the area and we are taking initiatives with them all.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had during his recent visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the need to reassess British policy towards Eastern European countries.

Mr. George Brown: None specifically. We talked a great deal about Europe. It is generally recognised that this country has been among the leaders in developing relations with the countries of Eastern

Europe, and I know I have my hon. Friend's support in that.

Mrs. Short: I assure my right hon. Friend that he certainly has. Does not he think that the time has come for the normalisation of our relations with East Germany, for example? Should not the policy he put forward at the Labour Party Conference in 1961 now be implemented? Does not my right hon. Friend think that there is something wrong with a policy which prevents peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here, when the leader of the West German Nationalists is allowed to come, apparently, to lecture to university students?

Mr. Brown: I do not know what inhibits peace-loving friends from East Germany coming here more than the existence of the Wall for which they are responsible.

Mr. Doughty: Will the right hon. Gentleman collaborate with the right hon. Lady in trying to persuade Eastern European countries to have some form of democracy?

Mr. James Davidson: Is it intended to make any official reaction to the Bucharest Declaration of the Warsaw Pact countries last July proposing a conference on European security?

Mr. Brown: I am rather against, as I have often said, the bloc-to-bloc approach. We have initiated, as my predecessor announced, a proposal for a declaration which countries both east and west of the so-called Curtain may join in and we are pursuing that initiative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMANY

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now seek to initiate discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and the United States of America about the situation in West Germany.

Mr. George Brown: No, Sir.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on both sides of this House and in the country generally, there has been great concern at the break-through of the N.P.D. in West Germany? Does not he think that he should put forward some


proposals to see that history does not repeat itself? Britain cannot stand aside.

Mr. Brown: The way to avoid history repeating itself is for us not to make the mistakes we made in the 1920s and 1930s. Let us keep the thing in perspective. No one will under-estimate the N.P.D. vote but the democratic vote was over 89 per cent. in Bavaria, for example. The present democratic leaders of Germany are worthy of and should receive all our support.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (SANCTIONS AGAINST RHODESIA)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances have been given to the South African Government about the proposed mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. George Brown: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this question during the debate on Rhodesia and in answer to Questions following his statement to the House on 5th December.—[Vol. 737, c. 1070–1.]

Mr. Wall: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that South Africa will continue to adhere to its policy of trading with its neighbours so that sanctions will either be ineffective or will have to be enforced, if that is possible? Are not the Government putting themselves in a dangerously exposed position?

Mr. Brown: It is the hon. Gentleman who is doing that. The United Nations has now made an historic mandatory call upon all member States. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that it would be presumption to start by assuming that certain countries will not honour their obligations as members of the United Nations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: But do we not know that South Africa has said that she will not honour this United Nations instruction? That being so, will the right hon. Gentleman again make it clear that South Africa is, in the Government's mind, excluded from any attempt to enforce sanctions? This he himself has said and I hope that he will repeat it.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of not being very much in favour of the United

Nations. I am not willing, as he is, to assume that any member State is willing to dishonour its obligations.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do nothing to condone the ill-faith of any member of the United Nations which may repudiate its plain obligation under the Charter?

Mr. Brown: I will go further. I do not believe that it is a good thing to start by assuming that some member States are willing to dishonour their obligations.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the Foreign Secretary face the facts? Have not the South African Government said already that they will not honour this instruction? Have not Her Majesty's Government said that they will not allow these sanctions to be applied to South Africa?

Mr. Brown: I see now how the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong so often. What he has described as fact is pure hypothesis.

Mr. Longden: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the report, dated March, 1965, by an expert committee appointed by the Security Council to investigate the feasibility, effectiveness and implications of mandatory sanctions? Is he aware that the report stated that their effectiveness must depend wholly on their universality, which must necessarily mean unequal hardship? Is he further aware that the report advocated an international effort to mitigate this hardship, particularly by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question to that effect and I will have a look at it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NON-PROLIFERATION)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations to control nuclear tests and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. George Brown: While I was in Moscow I pressed Mr. Gromyko to agree to the long-standing Western proposal for scientific talks to explore the possibility of progress on a comprehensive test ban.


Unfortunately this was rejected. On non-proliferation, however, as I told the House on 6th December, there is now a new prospect of agreement. This is delicately balanced, but we and our allies are doing our best to get a treaty.—[Vol. 737, c. 1173.]

Mr. Ridsdale: Will such a non-proliferation treaty contain a clause affecting the transfer of nuclear weapons to and through alliances? What is the Government's view towards keeping open such an option for European defence?

Mr. Brown: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being very much on the ball. However, in view of what I said about the delicate balance, we ought to let it rest there.

Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is full agreement between the United States and this country about the text of a non-proliferation agreement?

Mr. Brown: I repeat that we and our allies are doing our best to get a treaty. There is not much to be gained by my making too specific statements today.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (PARIS TALKS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Paris talks, in relation to British-Indonesian relations.

Mr. Padley: The discussions to which my hon. Friend refers are still in progress.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the attitude towards the re-scheduling of debt which Her Majesty's Government have taken up?

Mr. Padley: We are, of course, only one creditor among several taking part in the Paris talks and by no means the largest, but we are using our influence to achieve a speedy and realistic settlement of the problem. The talks in Paris are due to end on 22nd December.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Would not one helpful factor be the dispatch of British technicians to Indonesia to help get going again such industries as the sugar and rubber plantations?

Mr. Padley: Of course we welcome the recent action of the Indonesian Government in restoring British property to British owners and lessees, and the point which my hon. Friend makes can be considered after that.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER GENERAL

No. 10 Downing Street (Facilities)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. ROBERT COOKE: To ask the Paymaster General what official facilities he has in No. 10 Downing Street.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cooke.

Hon. Members: Where is he?

The Paymaster General (Mr. George Wigg): On a point of order. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order in connection with this Question. I now seek your guidance whether to do so now, or at 3.30.

Mr. Speaker: After Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what new initiative the Government have taken in international negotiations on disarmament since 16th October, 1964.

Mr. George Brown: The Government have done all in their power to forward progress in disarmament, particularly on the urgent issue of a non-proliferation treaty, and our continuous initiative has contributed largely to the progress that has been made. What is needed is determined negotiation on the proposals already on the table rather than the addition of new ones.

Mr. Campbell: I agree about what is needed, but why has no initiative from the British Government been visible? Why is it that the new drafts which have become public have emanated from the United States, the Soviet Union and else-where?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman obviously cannot be kept informed of what we are doing all the time, but the drafts owe a very great deal to our work.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Having regard to the very disappointing results of disarmament negotiations over the last 45 years, is it not apparent that sovereign States will not disarm until they are presented with an alternative system of security, and will not Her Majesty's Government now propose a package deal, consisting of phased, general and simultaneous disarmament, coupled with the establishment of such a world authority keeping world peace, through world law?

Mr. Brown: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will recognise that I have done as much as I can, and am still doing so, to increase the authority of the United Nations as a step on the road to what he and I both accept—the need for a world authority with real peace-keeping forces at its disposal. I do not think that should lead us to the depressing view that no measures of disarmament can be obtained in the meantime. That is contrary to the facts.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that Lord Chalfont said 18 months ago that the British Government had a master plan for disarmament which would shake the Russians and Americans out of their complacency? Would he put a copy of it in the Library so that we can study it? [Laughter.]

Mr. Brown: That is the kind of remark that goes down well in this House but leaves the essentials of the situation totally untouched. It is good for the Oxford Union but not too good for real needs. This is the work of my noble Friend Lord Chalfont, the Minister of State with responsibility for this matter, and the proposals that we have put forward would, I expect, receive even grudging commendations from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that when the ex-Leader of the Opposition was at the opening meetings of the Committee of Eighteen in Geneva he said that a master plan should be made from the proposals put forward in the United States and Russian plans, but when he became Prime Minister he dropped his master plan and took an interest in an independent nuclear deterrent instead?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consult the records. Is he aware that they will show a joint United Kingdom-American plan—that is if it has not been lost at the Foreign Office. If it has one can probably be found in the State Department. I am asking for the right hon. Gentleman's plan. We should like to know what it is.

Mr. Brown: The only documents ever lost in the Foreign Office were lost in the days of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors. Nothing like that happened in our time.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Wigg: I rise on a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker. I have also given notice to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). It relates to a Question on the Order Paper, which was down for answer on Monday, 28th November. It was deferred until 5th December, and deferred again on 12th December and has been deferred again today. This meant that on 28th November and again today I have been here for the whole of Question Time, waiting to answer a Question which had been deferred, obviously as part of a prearranged plan—[Interruption.]—the sole object of which was presumably to cause me inconvenience, and I presume, judging by the titters, annoyance, which has met with the approval of some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I do not complain of a lack of courtesy on the part of the hon. Gentleman in not informing me of the deferment of his Question, but in my submission the hon. Member for Bristol, West has abused the procedure of the House quite irresponsibly and in so doing has raised a point of order which requires a Ruling by you as to whether the hon. Member, having invoked the procedure of the House and thus placing servants of the House in the same position as myself, is not guilty of disorderly conduct in using this procedure for no purpose, except the adolescent enjoyment of causing me inconvenience.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the simple answer to the point of order raised by the right hon. Gentleman is that the


putting down of Questions and the failing to be in one's place to ask the Question at the appropriate time is not a matter for the Chair. Any dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred is a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Kershaw: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had given you notice of this question. As the question turns out not to be a point of order, should the House have been troubled with it?

Mr. Speaker: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Lipton: Since this matter has been raised by my right hon. Friend, would you ask the appropriate authority concerned to consider for how long a Question can be deferred? There ought to be a limit, three, four or five or six weeks, imposed on the extent to which a Question can be deferred from week to week. At present the procedure permits a Question to be deferred from week to week for the whole of the Session. This is surely an abuse.

Mr. Speaker: The question of deferring Questions and how many times they should he deferred would be a very difficult matter for the Chair to make any rule on. If there were any really serious abuse of Question Time the House would have to look into it.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. It will have been within your notice, Mr. Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary has tacked on to a number of early Questions on the Order Paper some of the later Questions up to and including the last one put down. This has allowed more supplementary questions on points of public interest than would normally be the case. May I ask for your guidance as to whether this is a practice which you might wish to encourage in the case of other Departments with long lists of Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I have been asked the same thing previously from exactly the opposite point of view, namely, to discourage the taking of a very late Questions with early ones. I have to watch this matter of late Questions to see if there is any shade of abuse. On this occasion, the reason why the Questions

had high numbers made sense. Some incidents referred to happened only last week, which meant that by the time the Questions got on the Order Paper they were quite late. If there was any abuse I would seek to stop it, but if there was an advantage to be gained by taking late Questions on the grounds that they were topical and could be tacked on to earlier Questions, then it seems to me that they might be allowed. One must leave this to the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before any more points of order are raised, I would remind hon. Members that we have a lot of business before us.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not always possible for a Minister to ask your permission to answer a question at the end of Question Time or to make a statement, if he so desires?

Mr. Speaker: It is always possible for a Minister to answer a Question at the end of the Question Time or to make a statement, if he asks permission of the Chair.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not an abuse of the time of the House for an hon. Member to put down a Question with the obvious intention of not being in his place, as is the case with the Question to the Paymaster General?

Mr. Speaker: The point was put a little more eloquently by the right hon. Gentleman who raised it.

SCOTLAND (FLOODS)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government are taking to bring relief to those affected by the recent flooding in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The House will wish to know that, according to the latest information I have, the position everywhere has improved and is well under control. Local agencies are coping well with the practical difficulties. My Departments are keeping closely in touch with the situation: the effects are still being assessed, but I have no evidence to suggest that special Government help is called for.

Mr. Dalyell: If the situation gets worse, may we count on further Government help?

Mr. Ross: I have stated that my Departments are keeping closely in touch with the situation, which I hope will continue to improve.

Mr. G. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, for many farms in the North of Scotland, this will have been an especially bitter blow, as it follows the very difficult period through which agriculture in that area has been passing recently? Has he noted that the latest reports indicate that there may be flooding again in the near future in the Glasgow area? Will he do his best to take all precautions there?

Mr. Ross: We are watching the situation. It is not confined purely to Ross and Cromarty and Inverness, although in those cases it is not the hill lands which are being flooded but the parts very much lower down.

Mr. Younger: Has the Secretary of State yet had time to consider whether it would be worth while putting an inquiry in hand to discover whether there is some means whereby floods such as these are prevented from happening in future?

Mr. Ross: We have had some discussions on this in the House before. If the hon. Gentleman had followed them—they took place before he was a Member—he would realise that there are obvious weaknesses. It will be worth while to see how we can improve the position.

Mr. Buchan: This is not the first time that the River Cart has caused difficulties in Renfrewshire and Glasgow and has overflowed. If we have had discussions about this before, it is time that they were resuscitated and improvements made for the future.

Mr. Ross: The discussions were related not to particular areas but to the way in which the whole question of flood prevention is dealt with in Scotland. I shall be getting reports from the local authorities on what can be done to pre-

vent this from happening in this area in future.

Mr. Noble: While we are all delighted that the right hon. Gentleman's reports this morning were better, if there is anything in the reports he gets which indicates that we are likely to have recurrences of this problem when we have heavy rain in future, would he report to the House?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I will gladly do that. I am anxiously awaiting the return of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who, because of the flooding, has not been able to get back here. We hope to see him either later tonight or first thing tomorrow morning with a first hand report.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent communications—roads and railways—have been disrupted by these floods and whether this disruption has been tackled?

Mr. Ross: They are all being tackled. In Ross and Cromarty two roads were still blocked by landslide, but they are expected to be clear today. In Inverness, there is a bridge down on the Newton-more and Laggan Bridge road. It may be reopened today. In the meantime, an alternative route is available via Dalwhinnie. I shall be getting further reports later this afternoon.

Mr. Manuel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the only cure for recurring flooding in the same areas whenever we get heavy rain is the better use of flood prevention legislation and possibly better legislation put on the Statute Book to counter the floods?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are two flood prevention schemes in Scotland. First, there is a scheme for flood prevention in country areas which depends entirely on the initiative of local landowners. Secondly, there is prevention within the burghs. Unless we get comprehensive legislation, we cannot deal with the matter properly. This is the thing for which we should all work.

SOUTH ARABIA (BOWEN REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on South Arabia, and in particular on the Bowen Report.
The House will recall that towards the end of October I appointed Mr. Roderic Bowen, Q.C., a distinguished former Member and Deputy Speaker of this House, to go to Aden as my personal representative to examine the procedures for the arrest, interrogation and detention of persons suspected of terrorist activities there. Mr. Bowen was in Aden from 27th October to 8th November and submitted his Report to me on 14th November. I have arranged for the Report to be published in full as a White Paper and for copies to be placed today in the Library of the House.
Hon. Members will see that I have included in the White Paper an Introduction describing the sombre background of the security situation in Aden. It was against this background that I decided I should reassure myself directly that the necessary special procedures in Aden were being carried out in the best way and that those responsible for them would be protected as well as is possible from uninformed or malicious criticism. I have also added a note on the action already taken to carry out Mr. Bowen's recommendations.
As I have already told the House, Mr. Bowen has submitted a most valuable Report and I take this occasion to thank him publicly for having carried out his task so expeditiously and so thoroughly. I am happy to say that, after receiving the High Commissioner's comments on Mr. Bowen's recommendations, I have been able to accept them almost in their entirety and the High Commissioner is now putting them into effect.
Among Mr. Bowen's recommendations are a number for dealing with complaints by detainees in the future, and these recommendations have generally been accepted. Mr. Bowen did not investigate specific allegations of cruelty to prisoners, but he has criticised the handling by the Aden Administration of some such

allegations in the past. I must emphasise here that his criticism relates to a short period in the past and centres on the activities of three interrogators at that time employed in the Interrogation Centre and the control exercised over their activities. Investigations into these allegations will now be pursued to a conclusion. While these investigations take place, I think it right that nothing should be said publicly to prejudice the position of any persons who may be implicated, before they have had an opportunity of giving their own account of what took place to the appropriate authorities.
We must remember that in Aden today, as Mr. Bowen says in his Report,
the life and limb of the population as a whole are in constant danger from the indiscriminate throwing of hand-grenades and other activities.
I was therefore glad to see that Mr. Bowen gained the general impression that the military personnel and the police, upon whom falls the main strain of protecting the population and dealing with the terrorists, were discharging their onerous duties with great restraint. I well understand the difficulties to which they are subjected in doing this and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration for the way in which all those concerned in the preservation of order in Aden, both civil and military, are carrying out their duties.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the White Paper. Obviously it would be a mistake to prejudge its findings, but we will study it with care. At present I am content to join with him in underlining the great strain under which our Service men serve in Aden. While discipline must obviously be enforced, this must be understood.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of this Report will be widely welcomed and that it is a vindication of the genuine concern expressed by the organisation Amnesty International? Would he not agree that the way to avoid this sort of allegation being made in future is to allow prisoners access to lawyers, to inform their relatives where they have been detained and, if possible, to substitute for the military police civil police seconded from this country.

Mr. Brown: I do not accept that this is endorsement of the somewhat wild allegations made in the name of Amnesty International which I deeply regret. Indeed, the Rastgeldi Report, which reached my hands only after much preliminary publicity this weekend, does not bear out what was said.
On the other matters which my hon. Friend raises, may I suggest that he reads the Report and sees whether we have met what he has in mind.

Mr. Archer: Without wishing to raise further issues at this stage, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the Report of Amnesty International made only allegations as to what transpired at two specific centres—at Fort Morbut and al-Mansura? If further evidence has become available since Mr. Bowen reported, is my right hon. Friend open to receive it?

Mr. Brown: Yes, but I think that before we start trying to raise new problems my hon. Friend had better look at what the Report deals with. Almost the first thing which worried me when I came into this job was whether our procedures were right. If the procedures are right, one can avoid the excesses. If we have put the procedures right, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we have done what is required.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the Amnesty charges were used by Moscow radio and Cairo radio and were held unfairly against British troops as a whole, will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity of acquitting the British soldiers, sailors and airmen in Aden at this moment of any intention to perpetrate cruelties? Will he also say that against the background of spasmodic murder and terror, our troops there have behaved with forbearance and restraint?

Mr. Brown: I thought that was exactly what I said. I wanted to publish the Report in full in any event, but one of the arguments very much in favour of doing so was that it narrowed the area of justifiable criticism to such a very small one and, by so doing, of itself acquitted the vast area of our military, police and civilians in those very difficult conditions. I hope also that the fact that we are willing to publish such a Report in full,

even where it includes criticism of ourselves, will commend itself to those whom the hon. Member has mentioned.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will be extremely grateful to Mr. Bowen for his Report and, in particular, for his recommendation in regard to future procedure to be adopted?
I should like to ask two questions. First, are the three interrogators against whom allegations are to be investigated either suspended or, alternatively, no longer in the employment of the interrogation centre? Secondly, since the Foreign Secretary has said that Mr. Bowen was precluded from investigating the specific allegations of torture, is it not important that this country should deal with the allegations made by Amnesty and say that they are either true or false, but quite clearly go into them and have them investigated, which, on the Foreign Secretary's own statement, he accepts was outside Mr. Bowen's terms of reference?

Mr. Brown: I did not quite say that. Pretty well all, if not all, of the allegations by Amnesty have been investigated in the past. The Red Cross representative has made something like five visits to the centres in the quite recent past, and one should not conclude or deduce from Mr. Bowen's Report that it thereby increases anybody's suspicions that the exaggerated accounts before Mr. Rastgeldi's Report was published were true. Quite the contrary. It limits the area over which there might be reasonable ground for doubt.
The question of establishing whether, over that area and in relation to those interrogators, there should be a further examination is clearly one that must be answered affirmatively, and this is now going on.
We must, of course, be fair to the men concerned. They have been identified, if not named. The Ministry of Defence is, therefore, making the appropriate inquiries to see whether there is a prima facie case for court-martial or disciplinary proceedings against these men. Those inquiries are going on at this moment. One of the three men is out of the Army. The other two are still in the Services but are out of that Command. All three are available and the investigations will go on.

EARNINGS RULE

3.54 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that the application of the earnings rule to retirement pensions is producing undesirable anomalies between different classes of pensioners, depriving the nation of potentially valuable contributions to the economy and having adverse effects upon the mental and physical well-being of individual pensioners by encouraging an undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement, urges Her Majesty's Government to seek an early opportunity to abolish the rule.
It came as something of a surprise to me to have this valuable opportunity to ventilate this subject, since I entered my name in the Ballot only 30 seconds before closing time, which only goes to show that it is always wise to buy the last ticket in a raffle.
From the number of hon. Members in all parts of the House who have raised the matter of the earnings rule—and it has been raised frequently, from all sides of the House—I venture to hope that I am batting on a fairly easy wicket. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the bowling of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, which I have not yet seen.
We have come a long way in our attitudes to social security provisions generally, and there have been great changes, particularly in recent years. Certainly, we are moving away from the situation in which we tended to regard all social security provisions as a kind of necessary charity to be directed solely at those who were in urgent need. Indeed, in the past people tended to look on pensions as necessary for those who were unable to save for their old age, either because of the nature of their employment or, perhaps, because of their total lack of employment.
We also looked on pensions as necessary for those who escaped what was in the past a common provision—capital grants of one kind or another, legacies from rich relatives to maintain a spinster or old people. There were also those whose families were not in a sufficient state of affluence to support them. For all those people, there was a general feeling that pensions were necessary for the needy poor, the pious hope at the same

time being expressed that the underserving poor would not quite get through the net.
Now we have changed almost totally in our attitudes and we tend to regard pensions—certainly I and my hon. Friends regard them—not so much merely as something for a special need, but as an entitlement and as part of the remuneration and reward to every citizen for the contribution which he or she has made to society in his more active years, either in work or in bringing up families, or in one or another acting as householders, housekeepers, housewives and so on. This is the final instalment, as it were, of payment to the citizen for the efforts which he has made. It is a very commendable transition, moving from a position of charity to the present position, which is clearly one of entitlement.
Perhaps we have not quite moved far enough. From my own point of view at least, I would like us to have moved to a situation in which retirement pensions were automatically linked to current wages so that pensioners automatically shared in any increases in the nation's prosperity, to which their earlier efforts had clearly contributed. We have not quite got to that stage yet, but we are nevertheless moving that way.
I am quite ready to give credit to the Government for the steps which they have taken. Some of them, perhaps, have been a little bit tardy. I regret, for example, that they have not proceeded as rapidly as they might have done in replacing what the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now Minister without Portfolio, referred to when he said:
We intend to replace the existing discredited graduated scheme".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 426.]
There has been some delay in carrying those words into practice. Nevertheless, the Government have made progress and I welcome it. We welcome in particular the fact that relatively recently they abolished the earnings rule for widows. At that time, the Government were urged from many parts of the House to extend the abolition of the earnings rule to other fields, particularly for retirement pensioners.
In that regard, the answer which the House got was not exactly forthcoming.


Once again, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, at the end of his answer:
I hope that the Committee will feel that it is a sufficiently plausible case for doing nothing with the earnings rule at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol.703, c. 844.]
One hopes that whatever answer we get on this occasion, it will not merely be a matter of stonewalling and doing nothing. I should not have thought that this Government would like to be remembered as one which could always find difficulties for any solution. However, they have abolished the earnings rule, and we thank them for that.
At the same time, in abolishing the earnings rule, they have created certain anomalies between different classes of pensioners whose needs in many cases are identical. If one proceeds to remove anomalies piecemeal in a field of activity like social security, it is inevitable that, from time to time, further anomalies will be produced, merely by having removed one. All the time we have to look forward to when we have abolished them all, and that cannot be done all at once.
I am concerned with this particular anomaly relating to the earnings rule for retirement pensioners. I have no doubt that there is a substantial demand from the public for the rule to be abolished, because it is a constant cause of frustration and irritation, and many individual citizens are aware that the provisions operate differently between themselves and their neighbours, which leads to social disharmony and discontent. It is an anomalous position about which many hon. Members receive letters with great frequency and regularity.
I do not want to take a purely negative point of view and look merely at reasons why we cannot abolish the earnings rule. There are three compelling reasons favouring its abolition in relation to retirement pensions which ought to make the House feel that it is time that we looked at it.
Firstly, its existence creates anomalies as between one group of pensioners and another. I will come back to that in a little more detail later, but there is always a case for removing anomalies which exist.
Secondly, there is no doubt that the presence of the earnings rule and its application to retirement pensions tends to deprive the economy of potentially valuable contributions which many pensioners could make. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of it, and I do not say that all pensioners could go back immediately to full-time work, but it is the case that many retired people could make quite a valuable contribution to our economy in one way or another, and they are discouraged from doing so by the presence of the earnings rule.
The third and final reason, which I believe to be the most compelling of all, is the social one. The existence of the earnings rule tends to encourage an undesirably abrupt transition from a position of full-time work to sudden and complete retirement. The social consequences of that are considerable, and I will come back to those in due course as well.
I wish to proceed as expeditiously as I can, because I am sure that there are other hon. Members who want to contribute to the debate. I revert to my first reason, the anomalies, and I shall take one example which will illustrate the position and enable hon. Members to draw their own conclusions.
With assistance from people who have helped me in this matter, I have discovered three ladies, two sisters and their sister-in-law. Perhaps I may call them "the three sisters". They are not my constituents, and I am not entitled to divulge their identities at this stage. They live together, sharing a flat. So far as I have been able to discover, they have virtually identical requirements in that they live the same sort of life and share the rent, rates and general outgoings of the premises which they occupy jointly.
It so happens that these three ladies work in the same department store, two in one department and the third in another. All are on comparable rates of income and in comparable positions. One sister is a widow, and one is a spinster. Their sister-in-law is a deserted wife. If one assumes that they are each earning rather more than £10 a week in their work, one finds rapidly that their positions are entirely different. They are all between 60 and 65. By virtue of the abolition of the earnings rule, the widow


is in receipt of her pay of a little more than £10 a week and, in addition, has a pension of £4 a week which is untouched. She grosses round about £14 a week.
Her sister, the spinster, who eats exactly the same amount, does not wear twice as many clothes and has no additional outgoings, earns precisely the same amount. The whole of her pension is disqualified because she has reached that stage of earnings which results in the deduction of the total pension. One sister gets £4 a week more than the other, although her contribution to society is no greater. I cannot see how that position can be maintained or how the Government can justify it.
The sister-in-law is in a curious position as a deserted wife. If I were to follow the intricacies of the various anomalies arising from her position, we would be here for hours and I might not be able to disentangle myself from the net. She, too, would be receiving retirement pension were the earnings rule not operating. Her husband lives abroad and has had no contact with her for years. If he died, she would be become £4 a week better off overnight. I do not say that that exists as a constant incentive to the lady to encompass that event, but it points to an extraordinary anomaly whereby a lady's total income will escalate suddenly in that way owing to an event which has no personal impact upon her in terms of her dependence and which has no real relevance, having occurred to someone living a long way away.
I am quite sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept that the presence of anomalies of that kind is socially disadvantageous. It makes for disharmony, for invidious comparisons and for frustration and resentment. Surely there are good positive reasons for getting rid of such anomalies if it should prove possible.
I do not wish to say too much about the contribution to the economy which pensioners could make. Clearly it is a matter which is within the common knowledge of all hon. Members. I do not suggest that pensioners should be encouraged to do more than they are capable of, but there are many pensioners who could be fulfilling valuable rôles. I know that in various parts of the country there is an unemployment problem, but there are many firms who have difficulty in

recruiting employees for employment of the large part-time variety for which pensioners would be peculiarly suitable. From time to time, I have seen such jobs filled to the advantage of the firm concerned and to the ultimate benefit of the people filling them.
I know that it may be argued that there is nothing in the present regulations preventing a person carrying on working after retirement age or stopping a person getting a job. The fact remains that the presence of the earnings rule acts as a continuing disincentive at a time when the incentive should be in the other direction.
Old people—though perhaps I should not call them old when I am talking about women of 60 to 65, and men of 65 to 70—often resent discrimination of this kind. They sometimes suffer from a feeling of inadequacy because they are no longer able to make a contribution to society, and when they find themselves penalised in this way it tends to make them rather resentful and to take the attitude that they will not carry on working if every shilling they earn is to be deducted from their pension. I am not saying that it is reasonable, but I am saying that it does happen in every constituency.
Whatever temporary steps the Government take to deal with the economy, the fact remains that if Britain is to make progress we cannot afford to neglect, or to discard, or to disregard, any contribution which any citizen, of whatever age, can make to it. I believe that we have to move to a situation in which everybody is making the maximum contribution possible, and I believe, further, that at the moment we have a pension system which is tending to militate against that, and tending to act as a disincentive.
I come now to the last of the three reasons, the social considerations. I regard these as the most compelling of all. It is now generally accepted that the process of retirement should be one of gradual adjustment, rather than a sudden, sharp, and often traumatic single step. Doctors, medical officers of health, welfare workers, sociologists and people who are in touch with the problem of retirement take the view that it should be a gradual process, and that we should not continue measures which tend to make it a sudden step.
It is interesting to note in that connection that at a recent conference held under the auspices of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, at which the Government were well represented, there was a good deal of discussion on this question of the process of retirement, how it should be encompassed, and how it should be phased. Indeed, the following Resolution was passed:
Noting the increasingly clear need to distinguish between the fully active population, those very elderly and fully retired, and an intermediate group neither fully active nor fully retired;
Recommends to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to invite the Governments of the member countries"—
of which we are one—
to: reconsider traditional ages and financial provisions for retirement in the light of this.
"In the light of this" is relevant to the previous discussion.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): Did the hon. Gentleman say "for retirement"?

Dr. Winstanley: Yes, and it is interesting to see what the Report says about a Paper delivered by the French delegate. It says:
We need to distinguish more sharply than we have done between different classes of old, to encourage those who can still work to do so, and discourage premature retirement … There is a good deal of evidence, for example from earning curves in the independent professions, that older men and women, even if still nominally in full employment, become in practice part-time workers as they move towards retirement age. Conversely, the psychologists as well as the economists remind us that sudden retirement is damaging: it is expensive to the economy and damaging to the pensioner's personality".
It was in the light of comments of that kind that the Conference of the Council of Europe took its decision, which appears to have been enthusiastically supported by Government representatives, by the Chief Medical Statistician from the Central Registry, and also by the Chief Actuary in the Government's Actuary Department. It is was possible for the Government enthusiastically to support that sort of view in Strasbourg, it seems that I am not being too optimistic in expecting them to support the same sort of view here at home.
In many ways that Resolution and that Report say very much what my Motion says. I do not want to elaborate on this point of the social necessity of employing older people, but in my many years in general medical practice I have spent a great deal of time dealing with problems arising purely and simply from retirement, how to manage retirement, how to cope with it, and how to phase one's activities in a period when one begins to go into a decline. In many people I have seen the catastrophic effect which can result from sudden idleness following an extremely busy life.
Among the Members in this House there are quite a few of advanced years but who are far from idle. I hate to think of what would happen to somebody like the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is at present keeping us out of Europe single-handed, if he were suddenly forced to retire. I think he would burst if he were suddenly stopped from leading an active life. We therefore have to look at this problem and decide what is the most desirable phasing for the individual concerned.
The present Regulations act as an incentive to people to stop working suddenly. By bringing in different regulations and by abolishing the earnings rule, we could allow people to phase off their work more gradually in the period of retirement. I am sure that this would be socially advantageous in many ways.
The hon. Gentleman may argue that a person is encouraged to remain at work in many cases because of the increased pension which he may thereby earn. If the hon. Gentleman does the necessary arithmetic—in fact I am sure that he has done it already—he will see that this argument is largely bogus. because a person who elects to continue in full employment—I am not necessarily recommending that people should continue in full work; it should be phased—automatically gives up a pension which amounts to £208 a year for five years, and, also automatically, continues to pay a considerable contribution towards his National Insurance stamp. The forfeiture of pension for five years amounts to £1,040, and his additional contributions amount to £175. Thus, one way or another, he pays £1,215. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that


someone who earns a pension which is increased by £1 a week, which he starts collecting at the age of 70, must be a person of extreme longevity in order to benefit arithmetically. I therefore do not accept the argument that the present provisions, which allow for an increase in the pension to be earned, act as an encouragement to people to remain at work.
Those, generally, are the reasons why I think the House should consider very carefully whether the earnings rule should be maintained—the importance of removing anomalies, the importance of seeing that we do not deprive ourselves of the important contribution to the economy which could be made by more fit and old people continuing to work, even though they may continue to work to a limited extent, and, finally, the extremely important social considerations.
With regard to the social considerations, it must be remembered that a great part of the social services are occupied dealing almost exclusively with the problems caused by sudden retirement. Whenever this proposal has come forward in the past, there has been a tendency for the Government to make sympathetic noises, and to produce terrifying sums of what it would cost, in order to explain that it cannot be done. I accept that one has to do the arithmetic to see what this proposal would cost, although my right hon. and my hon. Friends and I would prefer to see this money collected in a different way, and based on a graduated payroll tax to replace the present S.E.T.
We accept that, in whatever way we collect it, it will cost money. But the calculation is incomplete if it merely consists of a computation of one side of the account—the side showing how much it would cost. The Minister ought to endeavour at the same time to calculate the other side of the account and discover how much it would earn—how much it would save in terms of an additional contribution to the economy, and how much it would save the welfare services generally if they were not perpetually involved in sorting out the sometimes quite serious social problems arising from retirement. I do not say that we can say that £X or £Y will be saved; nevertheless, the amount saved must he considerable.
There are appealing reasons for getting rid of the earnings rule finally and, therefore, getting rid of the anomalies and so assisting this limited group of people—women between the ages of 60 and 65 and men between the ages of 65 and 70. If we could do this it would bring conspicuous advantages. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised this question on many occasions, and I hope that at the end of the day those hon. Members opposite who have frequently expressed this point of view will support my Motion. If they decide not to support it, I hope that they will stop stumping round the country telling people that they do not agree with the earnings rule, and want to see it abolished.
The Motion does not call for abolition tomorrow or the day after; it merely seeks an expression of opinion by the Government that they finally recognise that the earnings rule is anomalous and unfair and that it is having certain undesirable social effects, and it calls upon the House to take a firm decision to seize an early opportunity to abolish it. I hope that the House will support my Motion.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) on his choice of subject, but I cannot help feeling that, in spite of the long list of reasons he gave for urging the abolition of the earnings rule, he has missed the nub of the argument in favour of his proposal. His arguments are valid only to a degree which varies with each reason he gives, and therefore they are to this extent arguable and partly answerable. I want to support his proposal with an argument which I believe goes to the heart of the matter, and which in my opinion is unanswerable. I am sure that he will not complain about that.
The earnings rule can be justified only so long as our National Insurance Scheme is based upon the Beveridge principle of providing benefits against the interruption and loss of earning power. If the reason for benefits is a loss of earning power, a person whose earning power is not impaired cannot receive benefit. This is the basic argument against abolishing the earnings rule. But, as we know, the reason for basing the National Insurance Scheme on this principle was that the Beveridge Committee's deliberations were


carried out against a background of the massive unemployment of the 1930s. Today, massive unemployment can occur only if the Government grossly mismanage our economy. There is no excuse for it, with the "know-how" that we have today. The Government today think they have all the international brains they need to help them avoid this catastrophe in the future.
Last summer the Prime Minister told us that he expected little more than a seasonal rise in unemployment in the autumn and winter. No matter what we might think, if the Government believe that we are not going to return to the massive unemployment of the 1930s they must work on the assumption that massive unemployment is no longer the raison d'être for a National Insurance Scheme. In that case, the Beveridge principle is no longer relevant.
We have an idea of the Government's attitude to the Beveridge principle from what was said on 13th June this year in the Committee on the Social Security Bill. The Minister of Social Security then said:
In these last months we have breached Beveridge principle time and time again. I do not think it is a sacred principle.
She then went on to cast doubts on her own words by giving as examples of breaches of the Beveridge principle improvements in the benefits that are still being paid against the interruption and loss of earning power. She gave an example of strengthening the principle and called it an example of a breach of principle. In fact, the only breach of this basic principle during the years since Beveridge was the one last year—the abolition of the earnings rule for widows who are widowed over the age of 50. The Minister did not mention this in the examples that she gave last June, so I assume that it was a purely accidental breach of principle and not a deliberate act of policy.
The hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out that by taking this one abolition in isolation some of the anomalies about which he has been talking were created. Nevertheless, in the same debate on 13th June, the right hon. Lady said, categorically:
I am not in the least worried about the principles of Beveridge. The Beveridge Report was a wonderful job and all right for its time,

but we are in a very different time today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1160.]
I agree wholeheartedly with her words. I hope that when she made that statement she was doing more than using a mere platitudinous form of words, but unhappily her attitude as revealed by her actions since is not very encouraging.
It is important that the House should know whether the Minister now renounces the interruption and loss of earning power as the basis for paying National Insurance benefit. It would also be helpful to know what new principle she suggests putting in its place. As an Opposition back bench member it is not incumbent upon me to spell out the details or make proposals or suggestions to the Government about what should be done, but because I am anxious to see improvements in social security—and I do not care who gets the credit so long as we get the improvements—I would like to make a suggestion to the Government.
I suggest that the criterion for paying benefits should not be the interruption and loss of earning power, as it is today, but simply the criterion of poverty. This is more in keeping with present times and the problems of today. If the loss of earning power is no longer the criterion for paying benefits the earnings rule becomes irrelevant. If poverty becomes the criterion for paying benefits, other than a straight return on contributions paid, much of the saving on subsidies now being paid to people who do not need them should offset some of the costs of abolishing the earnings rule for those who do. But it is not a simple arithmetical sum, because with the change of the whole basis of the National Insurance Scheme as the reason for paying benefits the whole thing goes into the melting pot and everything is altered, with repercussions right across the board.
A decision would have to be taken, first, on where to draw the line between "poverty" and "adequate means". Until that line is drawn, it is impossible to do the sums. Nevertheless, this does not affect the argument. Any Government who have the will to do something can always find the means. If the Minister is determined enough, and if the Minister without Portfolio can achieve the backing of the Cabinet, the sop of sympathetic words can readily be


translated into constructive action. I hope that this will be so, but past experience persuades me that such a hope may join the long list of pious hopes expressed by back benchers on both sides during the series of social security debates in 1966. But if firm Government action, early in 1967, proves my fear to be groundless, with the hon. Member for Cheadle and certainly with a large number of National Insurance beneficiaries, I shall have a very happy New Year.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The subject of the Motion is not a new one. The earnings rule for retired pensioners has been with us for some time. I clearly remember the early debates on this subject. One of the great opponents of any abolition of the earnings rule was the trade union movement, which was very conscious that the retired pensioner might be used as cheap labour. Circumstances have changed remarkably. The trade union movement today is no longer afraid of that happening and feels itself strong enough to prevent this kind of pressure being brought on old age pensioners.
Nevertheless, we must consider the earnings rule as applied to pensioners with great care. The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) talked about Beveridge. In the early stages, many possible changes were not made because we were too conscious of Beveridge and too anxious to stand by the six ideas which he put forward. We have left behind that idea. Particularly with regard to widows with children, we departed from it a long time ago. I was happy that we did.
The hon. Gentleman propounded a new conception today, which he himself will, on consideration, recognise is far removed from Beveridge. The idea that all benefits should be paid because of loss of earnings or earning capacity got us into a great deal of trouble with the 10s. widows and others, but this principle still applies for pensioners and it would be dangerous to get too far away from it—

Mr. Holland: The distinction which I was trying to make was between loss of earning power and poverty. We might find, if we recast the whole thing on the

basis of poverty, that some pensioners who were retired from work were not in such need as other pensioners. The line must be drawn somewhere, even for pensioners and I would not exclude them.

Mr. Steele: I was coming to the subject of poverty. I understand the hon. Gentleman's approach. He might think that mine is rather illogical, but the House has determined the line which he mentions, that under the new system—it was called National Assistance but now has some other name, although its basis is still the same—there is a line below which people will not fall. The unfortunate thing is that we also have the wages stop. People who are working are sometimes denied the full rate which this House laid down as the minimum because they are unable to earn the amount of money which we said that they should earn.
My criticism has never been of the Government, but of the trade union movement, because it has never been able to obtain for people in industry the minimum that this House laid down. There may be problems about children. In future, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security and the other Members of the Government may be thinking of a new approach to family allowances to overcome that problem. What the hon. Member for Carlton said about poverty interested me and I was also interested in what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said about this subject being something which ought to be weighed in the balance.
Let us consider the two propositions. The hon. Member for Carlton says poverty should be measured; the hon. Member for Cheadle says that we must weigh in the balance the advantage of having these men at work and what it costs the nation the other way. I have another consideration, which falls between these two. A number of Questions on this point answered by my right hon. Friend show that to wipe out altogether the earnings rule would cost £110 million a year; perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that figure.
This is a fairly large sum, but the hon. Member for Cheadle seems to be unaware of who will get it. It is not the 20,000 people who are at the moment caught up by the earnings rule, because if


we abolish it altogether, all those people who are at present working because they deferred their retirement would all be treated as retired and have to get this money. How will the people who are working and deferred their retirement be considered by the hon. Member? He talked about the poverty line. The person who is able to work and continues to work will get his wages and retirement pension and is bound to be above the poverty line—

Mr. Holland: Whether the man will get his benefit for working will depend on his earnings. This would determine whether he was below the line and would get the benefit or above the line and would not get it. This is the point of having another criterion.

Mr. Steele: The criterion which the hon. Gentleman now mentions smells very like the means test to me. How can we make a decision? Either the man will get his retirement pension plus the wages he has earned, which I imagine would be well above the poverty line or, the hon. Member now says, the matter must be decided by some other criteria—and how can it be decided unless by a means test, which I should not like at all. I believe that if we have £110 million to add to the purchasing power of the people, then we ought to consider carefully where to give it. I am not sure that we ought to give it to the pensioner who is over 65 but is still working.

Dr. Winstanley: The hon. Member, I am sure inadvertently, is distorting my argument. I was not so concerned with the immediate recipients of the £110 million, or whatever the sum is, as with the effect of the change of the rule on those already receiving the pension and not working. I argued strongly that it was a social necessity, not purely the necessity of those people who would get the additional money.

Mr. Steele: I understand the hon. Member, and I hope to come to my own solution, but I feel that the first candidate for the £110 million ought not to be the man between 65 and 70 who is still working. There are other people who would be the first candidates.
It seems to me that one problem which has arisen is that the amount paid to a

man for delaying his retirement is not sufficient. We must give a greater incentive to the men who stay at work. The incentive given at present to the man between 65 and 70 is not sufficient. May I give an example? One old-age pensioner worked from 65 to 70 and earned all the increments to which he was entitled and then retired at 70; and he complained very bitterly to me that he was no better off, in that people who had not worked from 65 to 70 but who had drawn the retirement pension, were now getting more money per week than he got because of the assistance to which they were entitled. This is wrong. We all must agree that it is wrong. This is why I am delighted that the National Insurance Advisory Committee is at present looking at the whole question of this type of benefit and what ought to be done. I strongly urge that we should look very carefully at the question of the increments, which are now out of balance with the other part of the scheme.
We now have graduated benefits for sickness and graduated benefits for unemployment, and we also have the redundancy scheme. I heard an interesting criticism recently of the redundancy scheme at one of my own Labour Party meetings. I said that it was a helpful criticism for it was the first time that a group of Labour people had ever criticised a Labour Government for being too generous, and that was the kind of criticism to which I did not object.
While I agree that we must have a good hard look at many aspects of our social benefits, I believe that we should be wrong to take the abolition of the earnings rule for the retired pensioner as our first priority. The £110 million which I mentioned could be put to far better use. I strongly urge that the Government in their reconsideration of this matter should think very hard about increasing the increments for men who work between 65 and 70, because these are the people we want to encourage to go on working.
When I gave lectures on social security in the early days I used to say that the difference between a man and a woman in retirement is very simple: the woman never retires. She goes on from day to day doing the same kind of thing as she has always done. But the man who


retires completely changes, for he has to find some other new outlet. I beg your pardon, in advance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I go on to say that such a man only becomes a damned nuisance about the house. We ought to encourage these people to go on working, and the best way to do that is to give attractive increments to enable them to do so.

Dr. Winstanley: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I put a question to him? Much of his argument has been about which group is in the greatest need. Would he at least accept that the excellent investigation by the Ministry, published under the title "Financial and Other Circumstances of Retirement Pensioners", shows that the plight of spinsters between 60 and 65 is every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the plight of widows between 60 and 65 for whom the earnings rule has already been abolished?

Mr. Steele: I am always hesitant to talk about spinsters. I remember very well the passage of the Act in 1946 when my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport was very active in the Committee. One day she argued about equality for women in respect of contributions, benefits and so on, and the next week she argued for special consideration for spinsters. The trouble about women is that they always want to have it both ways. Either they must have equality in respect of contributions and benefits or they must decide that they are women, that they are the weaker sex and that they are entitled to more advantages, They must make up their minds.
If one looks at the longevity tables one finds that women live longer than men. They will, therefore, be a greater burden on the insurance scheme, if I may use that unfortunate phrase. But I am very conscious of this problem, which was very much in my mind when I was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, when we received a deputation from spinsters. In their plea this deputation indicated the effect of World War I and World War II on their circumstances. When they told us that their situation arose because of what had happened in those wars and that but for those wars they might have been in a far happier situation, there was no answer to that plea. All I can say is that we are con-

scious of that situation, but I am not so sure that spinsters want to be treated in a special way, although they are so treated at present.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am surprised by one statement in this Motion, namely, that the application of the earnings rule to retirement pensioners produces
undesirable anomalies between different classes of pensioners, depriving the nation of potentially valuable contributions to the economy and having adverse effects upon the mental and physical well-being of individual pensioners by encouraging an undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement …
Obviously, there are psychological difficulties for someone who has been engaged in manual work all his life and who is suddenly deprived of that manual work, staying at home with his wife who, after a few weeks, regards him as a bit of a nuisance around the place.
I suggest, however, to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) who, like myself, is reaching the age of retirement—though I believe I am a little in advance of him—that one can always find work to do at home. I remember visiting a retired friend of mine. He lived in a semi-detached villa. When I visited him he was coming out of the gate with a shopping bag. He had been retired for about 12 months. I said, "How are you enjoying it?" He said, "Terrible. My missus is the worst employer I have ever had." She had him cleaning windows and shopping. The man was always busy. In fact, he lost weight after he retired. He was working harder than he had ever worked in his life. This is a situation for which one must prepare oneself. When one retires, there are many jobs that can be done at home and if one does those jobs one will not be a nuisance.
This abrupt change from retirement is not due to an inability to function, the change is felt because of the abrupt loss of income.

Dr. Winstanley: No, it is a sudden transition of the rôle of the individual in society. I have seen old men, and not so old men, weep after a relatively short time in retirement merely because


of their feelings of inadequacy, the feeling that they were no longer part of society and making a contribution. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that there are many people in this position.

Mr. Bence: My experience is that the immediate reaction is this terrific feeling of loss of income.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) is right when he says that one thing which immediately worries many people when they retire is the loss of income, but at the same time my hon. Friend ought to give some weight to what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said. One thing that is noticeable is the number of men who, having had a long working life, suddenly begin to crack up when they retire. I wish my hon. Friend would consider how important it is when men suddenly find themselves apparently not wanted in society. The hon. Member for Cheadle is quite right.

Mr. Bence: I have been forestalled of course. The first reaction is to this severe loss of income. However, it is not long before—I have seen this so many times—notwithstanding the fact that people get used to a drop in their income after a time, they feel that they have no rôle to play in society. I believe that the drop in income contributes to this feeling. One does not have this feeling immediately after retirement. The first sense of loss relates to one's diminished income. After a time—I have many friends in this situation—people get this awful feeling that society does not want them, that they have no rôle to play and they have nothing to do.
Quite apart from ill health, I think this is a problem with which we are all faced eventually. Most of us are aware of the possibility. Men leave Parliament and they find other things to do, though I agree that it is not everyone who can find another occupation. I recognise this fact, but that happens whether we have an earnings-related rule or not. Instead of it happening at 65, it happens at 70 years of age. The fact is that it happens. I know a man who will be 88 in February. He has been retired since he was

65 years of age. He is absolutely bored to tears. His income is all right—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, when he says that the social attitude to retirement is wrong, I believe he is drawing the right conclusion from the wrong facts. He is approaching the problem from the wrong end. We have to start planning for retirement much earlier in our working life and come to terms with what is involved in it, from the point of view of work and the social conditions and stresses.

Mr. Bence: Yes, there is no doubt that because of centuries of working and toiling until one drops, we have never considered preparing ourselves for retirement. Very few men and women prepare themselves five or six years before retirement. I agree with my hon. Friend that because of a long historical background of working until one collapses, because people could not retire and did not have the means to do so, we have never considered—in fact, we do not consider today—preparing elderly people for the leisure that will come to them later in life. We do this with children. We talk about educating our young people for leisure. We talk of widening the scope of education so that young people can enjoy greater leisure in a society where probably the working week will be one of four or five days. But we do not do anything of the sort for old people.

Mr. Holland: There are courses for retirement run by a large number of companies in industry during the last five years of the working lives of their employees.

Mr. Bence: This, I think, makes my point. One of our priorities in the use of funds, if there are funds at our disposal for old people, is to create the conditions in which they can spend their retirement using their faculties and capacities. But to do it in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Cheadle would only create more anomalies.
Reference has been made to anomalies between retirement pensions and widows' pensions. But there are other anomalies. Policemen retire at 55 with good pensions, and they take other employment, still drawing their pensions. Teachers retire, and as long as they are not employed in education they can take on other work


and still draw their pensions. Civil servants can retire after 40 years' service and work in other fields, and they do not lose any of their pension.
The proposal before the House would not change those anomalies. A widow's pension must not be confused with what is called the retirement pension. A widow's pension is not based on retirement; it arises from the loss of a partner who was the sole source of income of the family. Therefore, the abolition of the earnings rule for the widow is different from abolishing the earnings rule in respect of retirement pensions. If we abolish the earnings rule, the pension is not a retirement pension; it is a pension at 65 years of age. With the introduction of the earnings rule the designation "retirement pension" can be abolished and one is left with a pension at 65.
There are many institutions that give pensions at 65 years of age. One can take out annuities with insurance companies. One gets an annuity at 65 years of age, whether one is working or not. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that the State should do that?

Dr. Winstanley: indicated assent.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should run it in exactly the same way. If we did that on an actuarial basis right across the whole of our society, including widows' pensions and retirement pensions, I do not know whether it would be viable. I doubt very much whether the cost would justify the benefits that it would bring to people about to retire.

Dr. Winstanley: I said that the important object was the abolition of the earnings rule relating to retirement pensions for men between 65 and 70 and women between 60 and 65. In so far as that was my object, I nodded assent. I go no further.

Mr. Bence: It would be far better if we enlarged the concept of pensions related to earnings. A man could work until he was 70 and then earn a higher related pension. With a higher pension related to his earnings, the abruptness of retirement of which I have spoken would not be so bad as it is now, especially for a man earning £18, £20 or £25 a week. That initial abrupt break being less

severe, the problem of the other break, the feeling of not having a rôle to perform, or of not being able to function in a useful way in society, could be solved.
I therefore believe that the best way to solve the problem is progressively to raise income-related retirement pensions as far as we can, not in the very trivial way provided by the graduated pension but in a better income-related retirement pension, whether paid at 65 or 70. One could make it progressive between 65 and 70.
I cannot speak for all the professions—I was in the engineering industry. But I believe that the time will come, even in my lifetime, when the task of executives at some of the top levels will be too much for them when they have passed the age of 55. The pressure in industry and management is great, and, even on the factory floor, with high-speed machines it is often such that when a man is 65 he may not longer be able to perform his particular function.
For men to continue then in many forms of industry in machine shops and on some of the automated processes involving conveyor belts would not he desirable. This is not an argument in support of my case; I am trying to be fair to all the cases. It would very often be better if a man were retired from such a process at, perhaps, 55 and he should have an opportunity to enter some other activity.
I used to say that it seemed to me that I was born to be a tool-maker and would be a tool-maker all my life. Fortunately, I was not. But when I look back over my life I think that it would have been a good thing if I could have moved through many different occupations.

Miss Mervyn Pike: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the pattern of employment in the future will probably be that people have two or three different jobs during their working life?

Mr. Bence: That is my point, that people could move through various functions in life. We talk about redeployment of labour, and we now have the training boards. There are many ways in which a man who has retired from industry at 55, 60, 65, or whatever the retirement age is, could well be employed in the training centres. With a little


training in the techniques of teaching and conveying his skills, arts or understanding of a particular organisation, he could be usefully employed in all sorts of institutions and organisations that may be created in the future because of the need in our scientific and technological age to move people from one form of employment to another.
But I do not think that the abolition of the earnings rule on retirement pensions would help that in any way. If the earnings rule were abolished there would be a tendency for men to stay in a job which it would be better for them to leave. If they were retired and could be brought into institutions where—

Mr. John Pardoe: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument very carefully. Can he tell me why his arguments do not apply to the widows' earnings rule, and why all the disadvantages of abolishing the earnings rule for men are not applicable to widows?

Mr. Bence: There are schemes under which a wife with children who becomes a widow can undergo training for all sorts of jobs. She may have been a housewife for 15 or 20 years and not have been in employment since she married. She can get training in all sorts of skills and then go into other occupations. I say that this could also be done with people who are retired. It would be better to use the taxpayers' resources to do that sort of thing than in abolishing the earnings rule. If one abolishes the earnings rule, employers in general will keep on people who the hon. Gentleman says in his Motion perform a useful function. But, speaking as an industrial worker, I know many men working in industry on machines at the age of 60 who could do other work on retirement, especially in view of the new training boards and all sorts of new social institutions that may be created.

Miss Pike: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is saying that the £110 million that would be spent if the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) got his way would be better spent on training people to do other jobs like lecturing in training colleges and so on. But I do not see how those men will be encouraged to go on to use that training if the earnings rule is still applicable.

Mr. Bence: If a person is retired at 55 or 60 from a particular industry—

Miss Pike: I am sorry—after the age of 60. I probably misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I was not considering it at 55.

Mr. Bence: I think that in 20 years' time the retirement age will be reduced in many branches of industry, and in some cases where it is now 60 it will be 55. I believe that many of the middle and senior executives could do very useful work outside an industrial unit in industrial training boards and various institutions that may well be created as a result of changes in our social structure and changes in the techniques of management and administration in modern industry.
It seems to me that to recognise this and at the same time to abolish the earnings rule, looking upon its abolition as an instrument to avoid abrupt retirement from a man's function, is an anomaly in itself. I do not see how that can be possible.
I take the example of a designer in an engineering plant retired at 60—he would probably not retire at 55—who was then kept on. If the earnings rule were applied, the probability would be a tendency, certainly if it were a smaller company, to take into account that he would still pick up his retirement pension. I do not say that the large organisations would do this, but I have no doubt that in many industries in which competition was very strong there would be pressure to depress incomes or salaries at that level in those circumstances.

Dr. Winstanley: This is relevant to the point which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) made about the attitude of the unions. Will not the hon. Gentleman agreed that this is happening at present in a slightly different way? With the application of the earnings rule, there is a tendency now for incomes to be depressed because the people on retirement pensions have an incentive to keep their incomes below levels at which the rule would apply. What the hon. Gentleman fears is already happening as a result of the earnings rule, therefore, and people are prepared to accept low wages because they know that any more would go back to the Exchequer.

Mr. Bence: I accept that that may be so in certain cases, but a general abolition of the earnings rule would mean that many employers would tend to think of people between, say, 55 and 70 years of age in terms of a deflated income scale at the particular level of function. Over the years, if the earnings rule were abolished for people between 65 and 70 years of age, there might well be a depressing effect on the rewards and general income level of people working at certain functions in an industry.
Although I have a good deal of sympathy for what the hon. Member for Cheadle has suggested, I feel that, if one looks at pensions and retirement right across the board, it is clear that the better way is to concentrate our priorities on an improved relationship between retirement pension and average earnings for the individual during, say, the last three or five years of his working life. I regard this as of more importance.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) for raising this subject today. We are all conscious of the problems confronting the whole range of citizens who reach retirement age, including the wives of men who retire from work. Before coming to the Motion itself—I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives and I have every sympathy with them—I think it right to sketch in the background to the situation which we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Cheadle will be the first to recognise the efforts which this Government have made, in very difficult economic circumstances, to ameliorate the conditions of the people about whom he is concerned. In his Motion, the hon. Gentleman speaks of the nation being deprived of
potentially valuable contributions to the economy
by retired people who are not working. Before the House can come to a decision on a matter of this kind, it should understand what the situation is and what the balance between people over 65 and the rest of the working population is. It is fundamental to the argument that the trend in the post-war period has been, and it will in future increasingly be, that the working part of the population aged under 65 will become a smaller propor-

tion of the population as the total increases. There is now an increasing number of men and women over 65 in relation to the total population, and this increase will continue, so far as we can foresee, for the rest of the century.
Looking at the economic realities, therefore, one must ask how we can encourage men and women over retirement age to carry on and make a contribution to the economy. I am entirely with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we must do what we can as a nation to encourage them to do so. Hon. Members opposite have had a lot of things to say in the past few months about the National Plan. In spite of present difficulties, it is undeniable that, once the present phase of the economic cycle is over—over for the last time, I hope—we are likely to have a chronic manpower gap in British industry. For this reason, all of us on both sides must support the hon. Member for Cheadle in his general proposition that the Government, any Government, must do what they can, within the possibilities open to them and considering the economic circumstances at any time, to encourage these people to play a larger part in the nation's economy.
In his Motion, the hon. Gentleman speaks of the
undesirably abrupt transition from full work to complete retirement".
In my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), I said that I agreed with that. All of us will know from personal experience of many individuals who have retired at 65, apparently fit and well both mentally and physically, but who, within a few weeks or months, have completely changed not only in their mental but in their physical well being. I am sometimes surprised by what I see of this in my home town and in my constituency. Men who have been working in the coal mines and who retire apparently fit at 65 years of age sometimes, quite quickly after retirement, find themselves going downhill physically.
There is one qualification which should be made here, however, when we speak of the desirability of encouraging people to work longer and contribute to the economy. There are some industries and occupations in which I would not want people to work any longer, once they


have served their lives there. I say this as a Member whose father worked the whole of his working life in the coal mines. I am entirely at one with those who suggest that, for example, people who have worked in the coal industry or in the heavy end of the steel industry might well be given opportunities to work in more congenial jobs. This would be helpful.
When I see—this is really going against the hon. Member for Cheadle; however, I think that he perhaps agrees with me because I see him nodding—the work put in in some of our heavy industries, not only would I say that the people concerned should not work after 65, but I would like to see them, as is done in some other countries, finishing work of that type before they are 65. I am pleased that the hon. Member is in agreement with me on that.
Therefore, with this background and with sympathies of this kind—I do not think that there is anything between me and the hon. Member on this—we look at the position of retirement pensioners after 65 and say "How do we encourage them to work, and how do we prevent difficulties of the transition?" As the hon. Member said, some firms do something by providing training courses for retirement. I understand that a large firm in my constituency which is soon to be publicly owned does this, and I regard it as a very valuable kind of course to be run.
But when one attempts to answer those questions one immediately runs into an enormous number of difficulties. It was suggested, for example, when there was a discussion on the abolition of the earnings rule for widows, that anomalies were created or that if one does one thing, then certain other things follow. This is always the problem. If one is involved in legislation on social security or, particularly, taxation, and does something for a desirable reason, other things flow which are less desirable. This is one of the problems that the Government—any Government—and the House of Commons must face up to, that as soon as one implements something desirable, something less desirable flows from it. One has to consider how to get round the problem.
Therefore, while I am agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the two objects that

he is trying to achieve—that people should be encouraged to work so that they can make a contribution to the economy after they would normally have retired, and that the abrupt transition, which I think is a fact in many cases, should be prevented—one comes to the point: What can a Government do about it? Obviously, any Government must consider the matter in the light of the economic circumstances of the time and also the general philosophy which must underly the social policy of the Government.
One of the major difficulties is as follows. The hon. Member said that the cost to the Exchequer would be in the region of £110 million. If the Exchequer can afford to spend from within its budget £110 million on this purpose, I would agree with him wholeheartedly. But there is a difficulty, and it is the difficulty in a democracy. There are a large number of spending Ministries within a Government, all of which require funds. We have all said on election platforms and in this House that we want better schools for our children. The hon. Gentleman spoke about primary schools the other day. Governments are under pressure from organisations and individuals who want an increased amount of money spent on the roads.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: One of the problems in education is where we are to find the teachers. Many retired teachers would be encouraged to go back to work by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley).

Mr. O'Malley: I am completely in agreement with the hon. Member. I believe that he imagines that there is a difference between us; it does not exist. I am posing the question which his hon. Friend posed: how do we deal with this? I was a teacher for a time and I know the difficulties, particularly in industrial areas like mine, where schools have a chronic shortage of teachers. Throughout a whole period of years a staff may be three or four short and supply teachers will be coming in all the time. There is always the difficulty of maintaining reasonable class levels. So I am certainly in agreement with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Will Griffiths: I appreciate the argument


that my hon. Friend is advancing. Has he considered that if the earnings rule were abolished the Revenue would be considerably fortified by the increased spending power of the pensioners? Therefore, a great deal would accrue to the Chancery through spending by pensioners on objects which carry indirect taxation as well as direct taxation.

Mr. O'Malley: Yes, indeed. This was what I wanted to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. We were told that the proposal would cost £110 million. Would it be as much as that? I hope that the Government will do something about this in the full-scale review which they are carrying out in which these problems and facts must inevitably he dealt with. I hope that the Minister will say something about this.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the problem of a democracy, particularly with a Government like the present one, where a whole range of problems has to be dealt with and vast amounts of money are needed, partly because of neglect in the past, but partly because of the problems that one will always have in a democracy which is a humane one. It is really the problem that the demands of the democracy and the citizens within it will always tend to outrun the economic and financial resources. I should not be surprised if that was not one of the problems which the Chancellor and the Government are having to contend with at this time. All I say is that in terms of expenditure, whatever the amount of that expenditure—whether it is £110 million or a very much reduced sum in view of what has just been said—there would he some financial cost to the Treasury, and that has to be fitted into the priorities.
I am hoping that the Government will soon be able to announce that they will be able to give some kind of increase generally to retirement pensioners. I am very much aware that it was the present Government which gave the largest increase for very many years when they took office in October, 1964. I am hoping that my hon. Friend will have something to say about that in order to assist precisely the people about whom the hon. Member for Cheadle has been talking. I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman about this, and I hope that he will recognise that this genuinely is a problem, that while between him and

me there is nothing because I should like to see the earnings rule for retirement pensioners abolished, I appreciate that it would create some difficulties and anomalies. I can also understand the attitude of the Government; they are subjected to pressures from spending Departments, and some kind of priorities obviously have to be determined in this regard.

Dr. Winstanley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that I put this precise point to the Minister, saying that it was no good his coming along with one side of the sum and saying what it would cost unless at the same time he came along with a computation of how much it would save in a variety of ways apart from those which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Member for Cheadle is raising a similar point to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths). It is important that we should have some information about that—I see that the hon. Member is nodding, and I am glad that he is with me on this—bearing in mind that there genuinely is a problem arising from the pressure on the Government.
The second aspect is how to keep people at work. A great deal could be done by employers to make part time work available for many people who would like a job but cannot get it. In my area, there are large numbers of such men and women, some of whom I see in my surgery on Saturday mornings. They want a part time job but cannot find one.
This is not just a question of the earnings rule. Other factors are involved, as the hon. Gentleman recognised. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this. I know that it is not strictly speaking the concern of his Department, but I hope that he can tell us what kind of advice or encouragement the Ministry of Labour is giving or what advice or encouragement it could give to employers to provide part time work for retirement pensioners.

Miss Pike: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Selective Employment Tax has made it more difficult than ever


for these people to get the part time work he is talking about?

Mr. O'Malley: Everyone recognised the need for some deflation when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget. At the time I would have preferred another fiscal weapon to the S.E.T. in order to achieve the objective. But I want to know the evidence on this matter. Some months ago I asked a supplementary question of my hon. Friend concerning the barriers to part time employment. In my area—and I have made some inquiries—I can find no evidence at the moment of the effect mentioned by the hon. Lady. To help the economy and to spread the transition into retirement, part-time employment could be very helpful, and I hope that we shall hear what the Ministry of Labour is doing or can do to encourage it.
Financial inducements are the nub of the Motion. While we can do a number of things to get people to take on part-time employment after retirement, none is more important than financial inducement. The question, therefore, becomes what kind of financial inducement should be offered. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman speaks of abolishing the earnings rule, but we must consider this within the context of Government spending generally. There is probably a case in terms of manpower for raising quite sharply the benefits which would accrue to anyone who carried on work after the age of 65. There is some such inducement at the moment but perhaps the Government could consider—they may be already considering it in their full-scale inquiry—what it would cost to increase quite sharply the benefits which would accrue to anyone who worked for a year or two or several years after the normal retiring age. I have the impression that, if there were quite a substantial inducement here, it would go a long way to help the situation.

5.35 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I am sure that we have all enjoyed this debate, which has been useful and interesting and gives an opportunity to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give, as I hope he will, the conclusions that have been reached by the National Insurance

Advisory Council on this point. In February, the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security referred this question to the Council and said that she hoped that it would report very soon. She stressed that she considered the matter of some urgency.
Although I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said, I am not asking today for the complete abolition of the earnings rule, largely because we recognise that there are two important arguments against such total abolition. The first must be the financial considerations. Any Government faced with a bill for £110 million or £120 million extra must think hard and deep about the priorities at this time of financial stringency. Then there are the theological considerations, as I call them, of the retirement principle itself.
First, then, the financial implications. We have not yet heard what the Minister has to say, and he may tell us that the Government have decided to abolish the earnings rule. But even if the Government have decided that it is right to abolish the earnings rule in principle, he will no doubt claim that, in the present economic and financial difficulties, it would be irresponsible to press for complete abolition now. That is why it is important to have answers to the questions that several hon. Members have put.
It is important to re-examine the estimates which have been made of the cost of abolishing the earnings rule completely. In 1964, the Minister without Portfolio said that it would cost £120 million. Today we have heard the figure of £110 million. It may be nearer £130 million. We would likes to hear the latest estimate, and also to be told how it has been calculated.
As the hon. Member for Cheadle and others have said, this figure could rest on the unrealistic assumption that all the 400,000 men and women now at work beyond retirement age would immediately stop work and collect their pensions. This would not be the case. Surely, in the expanding economy which we hope to resume once again, the work done by a number of people working past retirement age would add considerably to the gross national product, quite apart from


the money brought in by extra spending capacity and the savings that would be made in the social services. All this would have an impact on the economy as a whole. Quite apart from all this, there would be added wealth from the extra earning power at a time when we were trying to extend the economy as fast as possible.
If we are not asking for complete abolition now, surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the time is well overdue for a relaxation of the rule. During the Committee stage of the National Insurance Act, 1964, when rejecting an Opposition Amendment to raise the earnings rule by 20s., the Minister without Portfolio said:
The normal reason for relaxing the earnings rule is to keep the condition of the rule in harmony with the rise in wages, to keep the two things on some sort of relationship. The Committee will appreciate that wages have not risen since March of this year by an amount which would justify relaxing the rule by 20s. at this moment. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 843.]
Since May, 1963, when the earnings rule was last relaxed, male industrial earnings have risen by 25 per cent, to £20 a week on average and, therefore, the case for relaxing the earnings rule is, on the Government's own argument, very strong indeed. If the Government still feel that, in view of the very difficult financial consideration, a 20s. rise in the rule would be too big, why should we not have something less, 15s. or 10s., because surely some relaxation of the rule is now overdue? It has been relaxed on three different occasions, but the present rule limit of £5 is quite unrealistic in view of the different increases in costs and the fall in the value of money.
The most powerful argument in this respect is surely for an increase in the deferment increments. This is a subject first mentioned today by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who was followed by others. Surely the time is now well overdue for an increase in the increments which are earned by continuing to work after pensionable age has been reached. I will not go into the arithmetic—hon. Members have already done that, although I do not know whether it was accurate—for the Parliamentary Secretary has all the re-

sources of the Ministry to deal with the arithmetic.
The theory of the increments has always been that they should be related to the amount of pension forgone, and there has been no increase in the increment since 1959, although there have been three increases in pension, two under the Tory Government and one under the present Government. An increase in the increment is not only overdue, but would go a long way to meeting the case which was argued today. So much for the powerful arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt be able to bring forward on the subject of cost. We all recognise these arguments, but we feel that what we have said would go some way towards meeting them.
There are no doubt many hon. Members who bring forward the argument of principle, what I call the theological argument on this subject. It is a principle which we ought to consider again. Surely the time has come for a realistic appraisal of the whole problem of retirement. Most of the debate today has concentrated on the human and social problems of retirement rather than the economic consequences which flow from it.
Beveridge based his philosophy on two main assumptions—that the retirement pension would be enough to live on, which is never has been and presumably for some time will not be, and, secondly, that there might be a recurrence of mass unemployment so that it was desirable to encourage people to retire. That point of view is now wholly out of date and is accepted by nobody. In the present economic and social climate we want people to stay in work.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The hon. Lady is reminding us of a situation which has continued since the war. Why did not she and her associates in office do something about the earnings rule for widows and widowed mothers? I introduced a Private Members' Bill twice, and they blocked it.

Miss Pike: I am saying that I think that the time has now come to look at that principle. My right hon. Friends argued at that time, as no doubt many hon. Members opposite will now argue, that we could not have any more anomalies, because once an anomaly crept in


there was increased pressure to permit others. For a long time people held to this principle. I am saying that it is now time to look at the whole principle of the retirement pension.
We must encourage people to stay at work if we are to have an expanding economy. This we all accept on purely economic grounds. We must have an expanded labour force, and even in the technological revolution, which we hope will gain momentum, we shall need not fewer people—there might be a different pattern of employment—but more people actively employed in the community as a whole, not necessarily so many on production lines, but more people in all sorts of different kinds of employment as our society moves forward.
There will be this change in the pattern of employment and I believe that there will be increasing demands for people in the social services. All the proposals which all of us have made and all of the plans which all of us wish to make and all of the policy proposals which we all wish to put forward require not only large sums of money, but the services of many people in fairly skilled capacities.
Society is getting more humane and the social conscience is becoming more and more active and there are new ways in which we can help people in society, and many more people will be needed in the different facets of our social security services and the social services as a whole. This provides tremendous scope for people approaching retirement age. Older people can often go into this work and undertake, for example, much of the administration and the day-to-day work, thus freeing others for the more active jobs.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said, fairly dramatic changes in the age structure of our society are taking place. Statistics show that in England and Wales there are about 7·3 million people of pensionable age and more, which is 15·2 per cent. of the total population. Those figures are expected to rise by 1976 to 18·5 million, or 16·2 per cent. of the population, and the figures are rising all the time. In 1964, the expectation of life of a male at birth was 68·6 years and for a female 74·7 years. We now know that the expectation of life

is increasing all the time. I will not bore the House with all the statistics available to us, but they give some idea of the shape of the future age structure. Even so, we cannot make a realistic assessment of what the age structure will be, because there are constantly break-throughs in medicine and in other ways which enable people to live longer and have more active lives longer.
The belief that we have to keep people active is not new. I was asked why we had not done something about it when we were in office. As long ago as 1953, the need to encourage the employment of older people was recognised in the Report of the National Advisory Committee and extracts from that report clearly ran through the views expressed at the United Nations to which the hon. Member for Cheadle referred and had been expressed in the House for many years.
We must recognise the psychological and sociological dangers of abrupt retirement. For instance, the suicide figures go up remarkably steeply, particularly for men, at retirement age. I think that this is because of the feeling of not being wanted, the feeling of being useless in society. It does not happen so much with women, because to some extent they never retire. They always have the responsibilities of their homes and do not have the same break with society once they leave active employment. Nevertheless, there are these dangers in an abrupt break in the pattern and this creates difficult psychological and sociological problems.
Most people who are interested in this subject will have read the very valuable survey carried out by the Yorkshire Council for Social Service and Retirement, one of the most valuable surveys which we have had. No doubt plenty of information is coming to hand all the time.
The present situation is disliked also because it leads to a lot of fiddling and tale carrying. We all know—many of us from personal experience or from constituency experience—that many white lies are told about people allegedly working after retirement, that we get anonymous letters written to Members of Parliament—I occasionally get them—


telling tales of people said to be fiddling or bending the law in one way or another.
This is always a bad thing, and it is disliked, particularly by those who try to keep on the right side of the law and who are penalised by it. The abolition of the earnings rule for widows has led to several anomalies. I was interested in the tale told by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle of three sisters. I have one about two sisters, and it is almost a sadder tale than the first. In this case there are two sisters, both over 60, both working in the same concern and earning more or less the same. One is a widow and the other a spinster The widow has all the added security resulting from her husband's savings and resources, meagre though they were; she has grown-up children, able to look after her if need be, whereas her spinster sister has none of these resources yet she is considerably worse off.
I have never been one of those who said that it was a reason for not doing a thing because it brought up difficult and dangerous anomalies. But these anomalies are very real. What is the solution? I said that I did not agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle. I want to see a relaxation of the earnings rule, an increase in the deferment increments and I also want an intensive examination of the whole retirement principle, against the background of what we are trying to do.
The occupational pensions scheme put forward by my party at the last election is one of the best ways of getting round this difficulty. It fulfils the essential requirements of retirement in a society which should be able to achieve very high earnings in the years ahead, if things go as we hope. The scheme would be flexible and could take account of ill-health and early retirement. Under the scheme people could take a part-time job, even if they are drawing their pension. I pay into an occupational pension scheme and when I leave this House I shall be able to draw my pension and do some other job. I am one of those, I hope, who will always do something and be actively employed, even though it is only gardening. One feels that one

is more useful in society if one is doing this. This is the way that we must go. This can bring about gradual retirement without any of the anomalies so rife in this matter.
There is nothing more to say except to reiterate the arguments made. We do not know what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to say. This is my first time back in the House, I am slowly emerging from an attack of jaundice. I hope that I am not taking a jaundiced view of what I think the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will say, but I hope that he will not tell us once again that he is still awaiting the results of the review of his right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. He has had plenty of time now. I do not know what he was doing in 13 years of opposition. Surely he was thinking about this and trying to plan his policy. Beveridge managed to produce his report in 12 months—he has had two years and greater help from outside experts, because the subject has expanded enormously. In addition he has had the benefit of international experience.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Douglas Houghton): The hon. Lady has overlooked the fact that when we came into office the cupboard was bare.

Miss Pike: The cupboard might have been bare from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I would remind him that he has given no idea of what he would like to do. All that we have had is the excuse that he has had no money. When he was in Opposition he would never accept the excuse that money was short, and said that where there was a will there was a way. I say the same thing to him now. There are resources. I know that he has to get his priorities right, and I assure him that in opposition we have no intention of being irresponsible and asking for things that we do not believe are possible.
At the same time we would like to know some of the guidelines that he has marked out. I hope that we will get from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not just another delaying move but some positive ideas of what is to be done. We all want to help those retirement pensioners who can be actively employed and who can lead a useful life. We want


them to be able to work, for their sakes and for the sake of the community.

5.55 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): It may be convenient if I reply now to what has been a most interesting debate. It has certainly ranged far and wide, much wider than the terms of the Motion on the Notice Paper, and I have been bombarded with questions which are really the responsibility, not of my Department, or of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, but which should more accurately be put to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour and even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was at one time asked to take part in the debate.
I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), and I recognise that, like him, many hon. Members on my own side of the House have strong views about the earnings rule and the effect, or the so-called effect that it has upon the retirement pensioners. I shall start my remarks, therefore, by reminding the House of the details of the rule, because some misconceptions have grown up about it and its effects. I am not saying that these have been developed here but outside, even in my own constituency, there are two common misunderstandings about the earnings rule.
The first misunderstanding is that it concerns old-age pensioners and the second is that it somehow operates to stop pensioners working. The best way for me to deal with the first point is to remind the House that old age pensions generally were superseded in 1948. What we now pay to the very great majority of elderly people are retirement pensions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) pointed out, retirement pensions are a very different matter to old-age pensions. Old-age pensions were either accompanied by a means test or else they were pensions of only 10s. a week—and we can all remember that—paid from the age of 65, whatever the pensioner might be doing. Retirement pensions began at £1 6s. a week in 1946 and are now £4 a week for a single person. They are paid to people over the minimum pension ages

who have retired from regular work. In other words they are subject to a retirement condition. It is this which mainly distinguishes them from old age pensions and I shall refer to this fundamental distinction later.

Dr. Winstanley: Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that this same pension which he correctly calls a retirement pension is paid to people over 70, even though they have not retired and are in full employment?

Mr. Pentland: I will come to that shortly. The second misconception which has been developed today, is that the earnings rule operates to stop people working, or to limit the work that they can do.
Again I should like to make the position clear. The earnings rule is emphatically not a rule which says to a pensioner, "You must not work and earn more than £5 a week". The rule at present works like this. It applies only for the first five years after minium pension age—that is, between 65 and 70 for men and between 60 and 65 for women. Pensioners over those ages—and they are the majority—are not affected by the rule at all. That is the rule which has been decided by successive Governments and which the country has accepted must be applicable to the retirement pension.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Is it not correct to say that, while the earnings rule applies to spinsters between the ages of 60 and 65, it does not apply to widows between 60 and 65?

Mr. Pentland: I am advised that it does not apply to widows. I shall take up that point later.
If the pensioner is subject to the rule, no adjustment is made to his pension unless he earns more than £5 net in a calendar week. If he earns more than £5 his pension is adjusted. I emphasise the word "adjusted". The pension does not immediately stop altogether, as some people imply. The adjustment is at the rate of 6d. taken off the pension for each 1s., of whatever earnings there are up to the first £1 in excess of £5 in the week, and at the rate of 1s. for each 1s. of earnings above £6 a week. For example, a pensioner who earns £5 10s. a week net has his £4 pension reduced by 5s. A


pensioner who earns £6 a week net has 10s. taken off his pension. It is not until a pensioner has earned £9 10s. a week net that the whole of the pension of £4 ceases to be payable.
I readily admit that neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I are entirely satisfied with all the aspects of the operation of the earnings rule.
There is nothing in the earnings rule which says that a pensioner shall not earn more than £5 or which puts a limit on his earnings. I emphasise that we have this rule, not to make things more difficult for retirement pensioners, to save a little bit of money, to tax a pensioner's earnings, or anything like that, but because it is necessary to have a rule about earnings as long as we have a retirement pension.
We could have an old-age pension without a retirement condition and an earnings rule, but a retirement pension is what we have chosen, quite deliberately, because it enables us, and has enabled other Governments, to pay more money to those pensioners not working or not working, substantially.
Some people may say, "Do away with the retirement condition and earnings rule, but pay the present rate of pension just the same, and not a lower rate of old-age pension." But I must remind the House of the considerable cost which would be involved. It would mean paying a pension to all those over minimum pensionable age, including those men and women who are continuing in full-time work and not drawing their pensions, and we should have to find another £110 million a year to do it—over £2 million a week.
There has been reference to the question of looking at the other side of the picture and considering how much would be saved by the benefits which would accrue to the economy as a consequence of abolishing the earnings rule. I think that everyone would agree that to do this would be to make a hypothetical assessment; we just do not know. How much would be saved is a matter of speculation. But what we know for certain is that if we abolished the earnings rule we would need immediately £110 million.
The hon. Lady inquired about how this figure was made up. My information is that the payment of pensions to people at present deferring retirement would

cost the country £104 million. The earnings deductions which would no longer be made would be £2 million. The loss of contributions now paid would be £11 million. That gives a gross cost of £117 million. The saving on unemployment and sickness benefit paid to people over pensionable age would be £7 million. That leaves a net cost of £110 million.

Mr. Will Griffiths: The figures which my hon. Friend has given are extraordinarily interesting. I think that he has indicated that the figure of £104 million applies to pensioners still at work—in other words, pensioners whose entitlement to pension is wholly extinguished by the amount of work that they do. Is my interpretation correct?

Mr. Pentland: In the main, people who have deferred their pension or had it wholly extinguished. I shall refer later to the figures involved. We are now concerned with cost. Whether we like it or not, this is the cost involved and the amount of money which would have to be found if we were immediately to abolish the earnings rule. The House must also remember that the bulk of this extra money would be paid not to the retired people but to people who are at present in full-time work.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has said on more than one occasion in the House and to officials of the old-age pensioners' associations who have been to see us that if she were in the happy position of having an additional £110 million a year to spend, this would hardly be the first priority to which she would wish to devote it. I entirely agree. I think that we must all accept that if the Minister had £110 million to devote to what we would term the correct priorities, the abolition of the earnings rule would not have first priority.
Much has been said today about the desirability of encouraging older people to work. Indeed, that is one of the points to which the hon. Member for Cheadle refers in his Motion. Certainly we wish to encourage older people to work when they can and to the extent that they can. The present arrangements under the National Insurance Scheme provide a very flexible way of securing this. A pension is provided which is payable on retirement. But "retirement" does not mean that the person concerned must


give up work altogether; the National Insurance Act provides that he can be treated as having retired from regular employment if he does not propose to work regularly or to any considerable extent. If a person works regularly in his normal work, he does not get his pension right away. He gets, however, a bigger pension when he does retire. It is not for me in the context of this afternoon's Motion, to go into the why and the wherefore of the fact that the increased pension is not bigger when that person reaches the age of 70. As I have said, once a man reaches the age of 70, or a woman 65, the pension is payable without any further condition about retirement or earnings.
Therefore, a person really has ample choice. He can stop work and take a pension as soon as he reaches the minimum pensionable age. From my experience as a miner, and now as a miner's representative and representing an industrial area in the County of Durham, I know full well that retirement at the pension age appeals to many miners and I am sure, industrial workers of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) spoke, who would wish to retire at 65.
Indeed, in my part of the country, we are in the sad and unfortunate position that although they would like to continue working, many miners now have to be retired between the ages of 60 and 65 because of the declining manpower demand in the coal industry. This applies to Durham and, I am quite sure, to Wales, as it does also to Scotland.
Therefore, we must face the fact that there are many industrial workers who, even if they wanted to, are not fully able to carry on after retirement age at the job at which they may have worked for as long as 50 years. On the other hand, the pensioner may choose not to give up work completely at that age. We accept that he may want to continue to do some work. The retirement condition and the earnings rule together do not prevent that. If, however, such a person's earnings become substantial, an adjustment is made to the pension which is payable. Otherwise, there would be nothing to stop a pensioner making a token retirement and then resuming work and drawing his pension together with full wages. We must

face these facts when we talk about abolishing the earnings rule.
Incidentally, although the question raised by the hon. Member for Cheadle of the pension scheme which the present Government were expected to introduce is outside the terms of the Motion, I repeat, as we have said many times recently in the House, that we have given a pledge that before the end of this Parliament we will eliminate the present graduated pension scheme and introduce a real earnings-related pension scheme of our own. I cannot develop that further at this stage, but it is something that we have said time and time again.
I have referred to the person who could make a token retirement and, possibly, continue to draw full wages. These are the dangers which I would like the hon. Member for Cheadle to ponder when he considers the abolition of the earnings rule.

Mr. Will Griffiths: But the pensioner can earn only, at maximum, another £5. In other words, he extinguishes the pension completely at £9 a week. That is not a very princely sum.

Mr. Pentland: I accept that. We are not talking about how much would be gained one way or the other. It is the principle that we must have, and which the country and successive Governments have accepted, of having an earnings rule for a retirement pension. The principal thing involved is that we have a retirement pension.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: rose—

Mr. Pentland: I am sorry, I cannot give way. The other main choice for a man is to carry on working as long as he feels fit to do so because, by postponing taking a pension, he can get a better pension when ultimately he retires. As hon. Members have said, this is the increment system, which, again, is outside the scope of today's debate.
If a man continues in his employment but is prevented temporarily at any time from working because he is sick, he is entitled to get sickness benefit at the same rate as his pension would have been payable for those weeks. If he falls out of work for a time, he can get unemployment benefit in the same way.
The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the rule deprived the economy of useful labour. Perhaps I can give the House a few figures based on inquiries we made last year to see whether we were successful in our aim of providing a flexible set of arrangements. In June, 1965, there were 370,000 persons who had not retired and were not drawing their pensions although they were over the minimum pension age of 65 for men or 60 for women. They were working and paying contributions. Of the larger number—between 1¼million and 1½million people—who had retired and were subject to the earnings rule., more than 200,000 were known to be working to some extent. Only about 20,000 of them, however, were working to such an extent that their pension was either reduced or wholly extinguished under the earnings rule. Therefore, over one-third of the people in the age group theoretically subject to the earnings rule were working to some extent. This certainly does not suggest to the Government that there is any discouragement here. Rather do we seem to have essentially the very sort of flexible arrangement for gradual retirement which the hon. Member for Cheadle wants.
I come now to what, for the purposes of this debate, is probably the most important point, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) has referred. I said earlier that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself were entirely satisfied with all aspects of the existing earnings rule. It was for this reason that in February this year my right hon. Friend referred the earnings rule to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. That committee was asked to examine the subject as a question—not merely the level at which the earnings rule should start to operate, but also all the associated matters including, in particular, some rather technical matters which attach to the earnings rule.
I understand that the Advisory Committee has not yet completed its Report but that it is likely to be completed and presented to my right hon. Friend quite soon. It will, of course, be published and I am sure that it will be an important

contribution to our thinking on this subject. I am afraid this means that I must refrain from taking up many of the points that have been made this afternoon. It is obviously right and desirable that the independent Advisory Committee should make its report without prejudice from either myself or anyone else. We will have to wait and see exactly what recommendations it brings forward.
I think that I have dealt, though not in the order in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned them, with two of the three aspects which he developed in his speech. The third one can be disposed of very quickly.
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of three sisters. The hon. Member for Melton gave another example, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) raised the matter of spinsters. In the hon. Member for Cheadle's example, two of the sisters were, respectively, a widow and a spinster. The third sister was a deserted wife, but I am afraid that we cannot deal with her case. We are not concerned with deserted wives in this debate.
The answer is quite simple. A single woman aged between 60 and 65, in full-time work in a department store earning £10 or more a week, in all probability would not have a retirement pension subject to the earnings rule. She would not be accepted as retired at all, in the first place. She would be paying contributions and earning increments for her pension when she eventually retired.
I have not disguised from the House our view that the details of the earnings rule have got out of date, and that there may well be some other imperfections. We have asked the National Insurance Advisory Committee to look into the matter. That being so, I am sure that we must give it a clear field in which to make its recommendations. In view of this, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Motion. If he is not willing to do so, I must ask the House to reject it.

Question put and negatived.

EDUCATION (DEAF CHILDREN)

6.22 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to provide increased facilities in secondary education for the deaf child, and to ensure that adequate places are available in universities, teacher training colleges, and other colleges of higher education.
I should like to thank the House for the opportunity to debate this subject, because, although it is one which perhaps applies only to a very small section of the community, I feel we should concern ourselves about it.
When I was elected to this House, I committed the first of what will undoubtedly be a series of practical tactical errors in what I hope will be a reasonably long career when I agreed to take a party of very large and energetic boy scouts to the top of Big Ben. Having accomplished that feat in 3-inch heels and a tight skirt, I decided that I needed in future to have more information before taking decisions of that nature. It taught me not one but two lessons. The boy scouts involved in that great feat of climbing were from the Royal School of the Deaf in Exeter, and their liveliness, intelligence and great interest in everything that they saw, and my own difficulty in communicating with them impressed me very much. Therefore, I made it one of my first jobs to visit the School of the Deaf.
As a doctor's wife, I have seen something of the medical problems involved in a family when a deaf child is born. Very special social stresses are placed on a family with a handicapped child. It is extremely invidious to draw comparisons between one sort of handicap and another, but it is interesting that members of the public do not perhaps feel as emotionally involved in the problems of the deaf child as in the problems of some other handicapped children.
It is very difficult to imagine oneself in the situation of someone who is born deaf or who becomes deaf at an early age. The only slight comparison which I can call to mind is the situation where one is dropped, as people are sometimes in modern teaching, into a new country to learn a language, knowing nothing of

the language being spoken around one. It is amazing how, at the end of a few days, one is emotionally and physically exhausted with the strain of trying to communicate with others in a language one does not understand and in sounds one cannot translate into something acceptable.
I should like the House to try to imagine the enormous difficulties which the deaf child faces. First of all, he has to learn his own language, in circumstances of extreme difficulty. He has not just to acquire an education, but a vocabulary of even a simple sort. Members of his family require guidance before they can understand the problems involved and help the child to face, each day, a day full of minor battles which could overwhelm him.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for undertaking to reply to the debate, because I know of his great interest in the work of the special schools and what is being done by the Government to assist them. Like all mothers, I am greedy for my children and would like more money to be spent on the special schools. I am delighted to say that we are to have a new building in Exeter which I hope will be of great use to the staff of the Royal School of the Deaf.
The deeper that I went into the problems of the deaf child, the more obvious it became to me that some difficulty arises from the fact that we do not have enough information about them. There are many special schools dealing with the deaf child. They are largely under different local authorities. They do not differentiate between one child and another. They endeavour to provide places and teach the child to the age of 16 as well as they are able, and they are doing magnificent work. That is a tribute which we should pay to them gladly.
However, there are only two grammar schools for the deaf. They are the Mary Hare Mixed Boys' and Girls' Grammar School and the Burwood Park School for Deaf Boys. Those two schools are endeavouring to provide a grammar-school type education for children who are found to have the necessary standards, and, as one inquiries deeper into the problems, it seems that


we may be wasting a great deal of talent amoung our deaf children. No statistics are available to tell us the numbers of school leavers who go on from the special schools or from the grammar schools to higher education of any sort. I should ask the Minister if he will consider making inquiries to find whether we may obtain that sort of statistics to be able to plan for the future.
We know that we have deaf children who are able to surmount the enormous difficulties with which they are faced and go on to higher education, but we have no idea how many there are. We know from a survey which was taken at one grammar school that these children are able to go into many varied professions. We know that they are capable of receiving higher education in special skills, yet we still do not know how many drop along the wayside who would be capable of fulfilling complex and useful tasks in our highly mechanised world. I should like the Minister to consider this very carefully indeed.
Education generally is in very much of a state of flux at the moment. We are searching for new ways of increasing our powers and of increasing the general standards of our school children. Can we now begin to plan to include the deaf child in the special needs of higher education? There is in America one specific college for the deaf, the Gallaudet College for the Deaf in Washington. It takes in an increasing number of pupils every year, and spends its time providing as far as possible the sort of academic training which, at the end, will produce graduates who approximate as closely as possible to their normal American colleagues. Yet in this country, which for a long time has had a tradition of university education, there is no specific provision for the deaf to enter university.
Many of the pupils take university degrees, but this is really doing is very much the hard way. A deaf pupil who enters an ordinary tutorial has not only to lip-read, but has to try to follow the thread of a very involved argument. In many cases such students accept other people's notes of lectures, which means that they get them second-hand. They have then to try to catch up with their hearing colleagues, without really having the basis of fact on which to work. Will

the Minister consider whether, at some point in the future, it will be possible to set up even a very small unit attached to one of our universities where the deaf undergraduate can take a course or a degree course which will enable him to go into the world better equipped not just from a financial point of view but from a social point of view to fulfil a greater rôle in modern-day affairs?
Gallaudet College in Washington found that its first year was spent largely in bridging a gap which was bound to exist between the special schools for the deaf and ordinary college work, but in their second year the students' general standards were almost as good as those in other colleges. They found difficulties with the languages and arts, but in mathematics and contemporary affairs they were up to the standard of the others. This seems to be a lesson for us. As our society becomes more mechanised, we will need all the trained people we can get, and there may even be professions in which it might be an advantage to be profoundly deaf.
I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the House today, because I realise that we have very little time left for this debate, and I should like to hear the Minister's view. Although this is a very small and specialised part of the community, these people very much deserve our understanding and our help, not our charity, because I believe that the deaf child is perfectly capable of surmounting enormous barriers given the right sort of assistance.
These children have already surmounted the barrier of learning a language. When they leave the special schools, they are learning how to cope with a hearing world. They do not live in a special world. There is just one hearing world, and they must learn to deal with it, and to live with it. For that reason I ask the Minister tonight not to promise to do all the things that we want him to do, but just to say, "We will hold out a helping hand. We will consider your problems. But, more than that, we will plan for your future and help you to join us in a modern world".

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: It is just over four years since the House


last discussed this subject, and I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) for having provided us with even this limited opportunity to discuss the matter once again. I know that time is limited, and I know that the Minister wishes to reply in some detail to what the hon. Lady has said. I do not, therefore, intend to take up much of the time of the House, but there are one or two points which I should like to raise. Before doing so, however, may I say that I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will give us some information on the point raised by the hon. Lady about university education, because this is a matter of great importance.
If children with impaired hearing are to get the full advantages of modern knowledge of how to deal with their problems, it is essential that they should be identified at an early age. Is the Minister satisfied with the present services provided by local authorities for ascertainment? I ask this because I note from a study of the statistics of education, and a comparison of deaf and partially-hearing pupils, that the figures for 1961 and 1965, if added together for each year, produce a very similar total—4,851 in 1961, and 4,727 in 1965—but there is a difference in that the proportion of partially-hearing pupils increased in 1965. It might be concluded from this that methods of identification have become more accurate, but, at the same time, since the total figures for the two years are roughly similar, I am forced to wonder whether there has been any overall improvement in the cover of local authority ascertainment services.
Dealing next with teachers, I am glad to see that there has been a steady increase in the overall number of full-time and part-time teachers in special schools, and I have no doubt that the supply of teachers of deaf or partially-hearing children will be further improved with the opening of the University of London Institute of Education Courses which began in October, 1965, with 20 pupils. This will help, but in view of the 1964 Review of the Department of Education and Science, which revealed an increased long-term demand, I should be grateful if the Minister were able to

give a progress report on his discussions with the Universities of London and Manchester about the expansion of training places.
This must be of great importance, particularly as I note that the number of over-sized classes in 1965—and in the previous debate an hon. Gentleman drew attention to this—shows a close similarity to the 1961 figures. In 1965 there were 41 over-sized classes for the deaf, 28 for the partially hearing, and 11 for the deaf and partially hearing. In 1965, the equivalent figures were 40, 33 and 22 It is most disappointing that there should have been virtually no improvement in these figures, and I hope that the Minister will refer to these disturbing statistics, for the House will wish to know what he intends to do about them.
In the late 'fifties and early 'sixties there was an encouraging growth in the provision of special classes attached to ordinary schools. This was a significant development, and demonstrated a more enlightened attitude towards the partially hearing. The objective was to prepare them, wherever possible, for full integration into the schools, and afterwards into a normal life.
Doubtless the Minister will say something about the progress made more recently. At the same time, it would be interesting to know whether any sort of information has been obtained, or is available, on how successfully these children, when grown up, have managed to lead normal lives after leaving school, for such information could be useful to those concerned with teaching methods and the organisation of education for the partially hearing.
We have some information on children up to the further education stage, for since the last debate a Report has been published of a survey on deaf children who have been transferred from special schools or units to ordinary schools. This Report is most valuable, although it is concerned with a relatively small number of children. I wonder whether the Minister could give some information—if he has the time—on what thinking has been given by his Department to the Report, and whether any changes are proposed or envisaged in the light of it.
I have asked the Minister several questions, and I do not propose to take up


any more time of the House. I say again that we are most grateful to the hon. Lady for having introduced this short debate.

6.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Edward Redhead): I join the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) in expressing appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody) for having taken this opportunity to raise a matter which is not only compelling upon our attention but which justifiably demands our sympathy and understanding. My only regret—and I think that other hon. Members will share it—is that the time is so limited in which to discuss a matter of so much importance.
It is true that the numbers involved are relatively few, when one has regard to the sum total of our school population, but they are certainly among the most deserving of our consideration. I endorse emphatically what my hon. Friend has said, that the deaf and partially-hearing children with whom we are concerned in the Motion demand not our charity but our understanding and help. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall bring myself to the consideration of this topic and what has been said in this short debate with every possible sympathy and understanding.
We are dealing with two categories, which we are defining as the deaf and the partially-hearing the latter category being now expressed, perhaps, in more positive and welcome terminology than the former negative description of partially deaf.
The separation of these two categories has been deliberately based upon considerations of experience and the realisation that their problems are somewhat different. It may serve if I put the figures before the House in order to give an idea of the area that we are covering. At the moment we have about 3,300 deaf children in special schools and 3,100 partially-hearing children in special schools and special classes attached to normal schools. About 5,200 other children have been identified as in need of some assistance with hearing aids in the normal classes of normal schools, so that we are considering a total of about 11,600, or about 1·5 per 1,000 of our total school population, excluding the population of independent schools.
This is one of the problems; these children are spread all over the country, and therefore appear in ones and twos. It is extremely difficult to make adequate provision for them, especially having regard to the understandable concern of many parents that their children should not be too far distant from home.
The hon. Member for Devizes referred to a matter of tremendous importance, namely, the fact that the difficulties of children in this category should be diagnosed and detected at the earliest possible age. This matter is the subject of co-operation between local health authorities, hospitals and local education authorities, the latter becoming responsible for these children, when detected, at the age of two. There have been considerable improvements in detection, but I freely acknowledge, on my own survey of the position—having only recently become responsible for this field of special education—that I am not satisfied with the degree of efficacy of detection methods in all areas. This is a matter to which we must give increasing attention.
This is vital, for a child who has a defect of hearing in infancy, if permitted to go undetected for a considerable period, presents an even greater problem of education and help at a later stage. In the course of my inquiries I have personally visited the Department of Audiology and Education at Manchester, which is outside the normal range of services but nevertheless is co-operating with existing authorities. I do not want to go into details, but I was tremendously impressed with the research work which is now taking place in that unit, and also by the team work that is being undertaken by specialists of various kinds joining together and undertaking positive research work, from which I hope for good and helpful results in the not-too-distant future.
I now turn to the question of special classes. The hon. Member for Devizes asked whether the development in this regard—special classes attached to ordinary schools—was satisfactory from my point of view. I confess again that expansion has not been very rapid. For that reason Her Majesty's inspectors and medical officers of my Department have been jointly undertaking a survey of a very large sample of the special classes


that exist. That field has now been covered, and the report of the survey is being prepared. I hope that it will be available to the House very shortly. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will study it with great care and, based upon the results of the findings, will seek to issue such appropriate advice as may be necessary and desirable for the guidance of local education authorities.
Reference was also made to the question of teachers for the deaf. Here again, more are obviously needed at every level. We are under very anxious concern that the numbers of qualified teachers of the deaf should be expanded as rapidly as possible. There has been an increase from 585 fully-qualified teachers of the deaf in 1959 to 749 in 1965, but the whole of this increase has been absorbed by services which are outside the schools. Therefore, we are obviously concerned to consider measures to increase the supply.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that there had been discussions on this subject with the University of Manchester Department of Audiology, to which I have referred, and the University of London Institute of Education. I am not yet in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman the result of these discussions. They are not complete, but I am anxious that they should be completed at not too distant a date. I regard this as a tremendously important aspect of the problem, for, whatever other provision we may make for these children, in the last resort everything depends upon an adequate supply of fully-trained and qualified teachers.
There has been some expansion in the use of peripatetic teachers, and 49 local education authorities are now using such teachers. This may be of considerable assistance in many schools. Here again, we want to survey the present results of the employment of such teachers. That survey will be undertaken by Her Majesty's inspectors in the next year.
My hon. Friend referred to problems with which she is particularly concerned, those of secondary education and of higher education for deaf and partially-hearing children. These two aspects represent a very serious problem and concern, one which has been pressed upon me recently, particularly by parents who feel the need for more adequate provision.

My hon. Friend asked me a Question on this subject on 21st July and I said in reply:
A total of 200 boarding places in a grammar school for the deaf and partially hearing in Berkshire and a technical school for the deaf in Surrey; 60 day places and 80 boarding places in secondary modern schools in London and Surrey respectively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 116.]
But the grammar and secondary schools to which I referred are non-maintained special schools, admitting pupils selected by means of a common entrance examination from special schools and classes in all parts of the country.
The grammar school to which my hon. Friend referred, the Mary Hare School, caters for deaf and partially-hearing children and admits the occasional child who suffers an impairment of hearing at a late stage and is unable to continue in or transfer to an ordinary grammar school. The technical school at Burwood Park caters for deaf boys only. The Secondary Modern School, in Surrey maintained by the Surrey Local Education authority serves a regional need. The four schools to which I have referred are the only ones where, at present, secondary education is provided in a separate school, but a reorganisation of classes was approved in the London boroughs of Waltham Forest and Newham, which will result in the provision of a secondary school in Newham. A secondary school in the North Midlands is under preparation as well.
There are many views about the best way of providing secondary education for deaf and partially hearing pupils and there are, because of the wide spread of these children, a variety of arrangements. Probably the greatest pressures at present are those in favour of practical measures to reorganise special schools for the deaf and partially hearing generally, and provide special education in secondary schools. These are most strongly advocated by the more articulate parents and the head teachers of a number of special schools for children with impaired hearing. The parents are naturally anxious that the schools should be reasonably near their children's homes.
These two aspects are difficult to reconcile. The view of my Department on this question is that any practicable provision for such a scheme in secondary schools


may be considered, but the process is bound to be gradual, taking into account local circumstances and wishes. Wholesale reorganisation is not likely to be practicable in view of the substantial capital investments needed for rebuilding in many areas.
My hon. Friend referred to the fine institution in her constituency, the Royal West of England Residential School at Exeter which, itself is the subject of new plans for rebuilding, upon which I hope that a start will be made shortly and which will enable that school to develop further its provision for the education of its children.
The question of higher education has been raised. It must be appreciated that a very small proportion of deaf and partially-hearing pupils qualify for university entrance or courses of degree standard elsewhere. Having regard to their linguistic handicap and difficulty of communication, it is greatly to the credit of those young people who attain these standards. These are admitted to universities and, I am sure, receive sympathetic consideration and support during their studies.
However, another problem in higher education is that many of the traditional occupations of the deaf, which used to be conceived of as based upon individual craftsmanship, were obviously rendered out of date in an economy based upon mass production. Further education needs to be related to modern needs and organised to meet the requirements of an inevitably scattered student population.
This almost compels us to the conclusion that the future of further education for the deaf must lie in a closer association with the provision of further education for normal children. I can assure the House that these are the lines upon which developments are taking place and I shall certainly want to study what has been said in the debate to see how we may develop further opportunities for the young people.
The problems of universities and higher education, of course, must take into account the fact that the number of leavers each year from special schools for the deaf and partially hearing is not more than about 400 or 450. It seems to us, therefore, that it would be impracticable to provide a satisfactory establishment of

higher education exclusively for children with impaired hearing, and to concentrate those taking degree courses by other suggestion of my hon. Friend, that of a special unit at one university, would similarly, of course, have the disadvantage of limiting the choice of subject.
It is for these reasons that the main trend has been for special schools with links with ordinary establishments of further education. I should like this trend to expand and we will certainly give our attention to it. Among developments of this kind are the developments under discussion in Exeter, where the new headmaster of the Royal West of England Residential School for the Deaf is exploring the possibility of building upon the foundations laid by his predecessor.
I cannot speak too highly of the work being done at this school and other similar institutions, which not only commands the maximum support for those engaged in it, but demands that we should undertake further research into all aspects of the problem.
I am very glad to be able to tell the House that the Department is sharing in the cost of two projects at present and meeting the cost of yet a third. Although I have not time to go into the details of the particular research projects, my reference to these will at least establish to the satisfaction of the House that we are considering the need to continue research.
I have not had time to refer to more than a few examples of the work going on, but, through developments of this work, we may have a situation in which the deaf and partially-hearing pupils will be able to follow vocational courses leading to employment prospects more nearly comparable with those of young people with normal hearing. Already, the numbers of opportunities have been greatly enlarged, but much still remains to be done.
For many, the continued help of teachers of the deaf will be required, particularly in the theoretical aspects of courses. But the fundamental task for the schools is to improve educational attainment generally and linguistic skills in particular. As my hon. Friend said, with inadequate language the deaf suffer a lifelong handicap, but I assure her and the House that these are the problems of which we are mindful and I shall lend


not only a sympathetic ear but my efforts towards meeting the claims on behalf of the section of our school population who are deserving of our fullest understanding and compassion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take all possible steps to provide increased facilities in secondary education for the deaf child, and to ensure that adequate places are available in universities, teacher training colleges, and other colleges of higher education.

INDUSTRIAL TOWNS (CENTRAL AREAS)

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House believes that neither national nor local government adequately provides for the special needs of residents in the decaying central areas of industrial towns: that in particular their housing requirements are neither met by the usual terms of local authority tenancy schemes nor by the provisions of those Acts which seek to limit the overcrowding of property in multi occupation; and that they are often denied the physical amenities that are provided in other urban areas and that they lack the high level of health, welfare and education facilities that are of especial importance to the elderly, the immigrant and the low income worker who make up much of the population of these areas.
In 90 seconds it is hardly possible to propose a Motion encompassing one of the great social problems of our time, but it is possible to put on record that the problems of the decaying central areas do exist; problems which the House hardly ever has debated and which it should debate. They are largely unknown to the nation and unrecorded in HANSARD, usually ignored by local authorities, for whom they pose special difficulties and on whom they impose special responsibilities—

Orders of the Day — SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) to open the debate, I should announce that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and other hon. Members. This selection does not narrow the debate in any way. The Amendment is:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It would be as well, perhaps, to remind the House of other occasions on which legislation which impinges upon human relationships has come before the House. There was a Bill, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act, which finally became law in 1907, which it may be recalled, ended the prohibition on a man marrying the sister of his dead wife. Before that Bill became law it came to the House on scores of occasions. Indeed, on Second Reading it was passed by the House on at least 19 occasions and it was rejected in the House of Lords on at least 13 occasions.
No one reading the debates of that period can but wonder at the Jeremiahs and the moralists of those days of yesteryear in both Commons and Lords. That arose only because a slight change in the marriage laws was desired. If we read those debates, the passions that were aroused seem almost droll, and the threats to family stability and the institution of marriage which were then uttered now seem historical curiosities.
Yet I believe that there are lessons to be learned. We are prone in this country to extend our national debates on legislation touching on human relations to the point at which they sometimes verge almost on farce, and sometimes they are taken to the point of morbidity. We should remind ourselves that it is now well over twelve years since the Wolfenden Committee was appointed and it is almost a decade since it reported. From the time that the present Minister of Health first brought the issues before the House shortly after the Wolfenden Committee had reported, down to the occasion on which the House gave a Bill similar to this a Second Reading when it was introduced by Mr. Humphrey Berkeley, the House has repeatedly and exhaustively tested the Wolfenden recommendations. This, alas, I almost apologise to the House, is certainly by no means the first occasion on which I have brought such a Bill to the House.
It is not surprising, therefore, in my view, that when Lord Attlee supported a Bill similar to this Bill in another place, one of the reasons that he gave for supporting the Bill and for trying to bring this debate to an end was that he feared that more was being said about homosexuality than need be said, a point of view with which I am certainly in full accord.
I am not suggesting that this Bill is as marginal as the Bill which I mentioned, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Bill, but it is well neither to exaggerate the effect which the law made here can have upon human conduct outside—a tendency almost to megalomania, a tendency to which we as legislators are prone—nor, when we are dealing with the problem, to exaggerate the size of the problem which we have to face.
It is true that no one knows the number of homosexuals that exist in this country. It was suggested in some evidence submitted to the Wolfenden Committee that there were some 750,000 in the land. The Home Office spokesman in another place indicated a figure of perhaps 500,000. These figures are sometimes blown up. They are blown up, on the one hand, by self-acclaimed moralists who always seem to be searching for immorality and, on the other hand, by homosexuals themselves, who in the case

certainly of some of them are so oppressed with guilt, a guilt reinforced, I believe by our laws, that when they wish to spread and to share their guilt, and to rid themselves of it, they sometimes have a tendency to exaggerate the numbers who are prone to this failure.
But whatever the precise numbers may be, all of us could agree that such is the unreality of our present laws that we can say as a descriptive fact that, apart from motorists, we are dealing with the largest number of those to be declared criminals in the land. To these men, what does the law say? It does not give them the choice of saying that they may live out their lives in discretion. It does not give them the choice that they may live out their lives away from public view provided that they do not flaunt their conduct. The law as it stands does not give them the choice to live out their lives provided that they never corrupt a young person.
In fact, the law gives them a brutal choice. It offers them either celibacy or criminality, and nothing in between. And since homosexual behaviour, it is to be assumed, is no less compulsive, though lamentably different in direction, than heterosexuality, we are demanding a code of behaviour from them which the heterosexualists among us know that we could not possibly sustain. I ask those of us who are blessed with the emotional security of a heterosexual life, those who are blessed with a good wife and with a family, those who have the blessing of children, have we the right to demand this code of behaviour from those whose terrible fate it is to be a homosexual? I do not think that we have, and in any event it is an unreal demand, and it is impossible for it to be met.
May I give the number of convictions of adults who commit homosexual acts in private? According to the survey of the Wolfenden Committee at that time, it was about 100 convictions a year, and, judging by the number of custodial offences revealed in the statistics, it is probably less now. Even to state these figures is to show how derisory is the conviction rate and how utterly unenforceable is the law. As Wolfenden said, there is an almost astronomical disparity between the number of illicit sexual acts which occur and those which are detected by the guardians of the law. If we


assume that we have as many homosexuals as the Kinsey Report revealed were in existence in the United States—if we are in this unfortunate position—it means that in the 21 to 30 age group alone, judging by the rate of convictions that are taking place, there would be a 30,000-to-one chance of an illicit act leading to conviction in this country.
Therefore, we have an unenforceable Act, and it would require a massive recruitment of police and an invasion of privacy which all of us would find quite intolerable before the law could begin to be enforced. It is bad law because it is unenforceable law, and it is bad law because it is utterly random in its application. It is totally lacking in certainty and perforce inequitable. The prurient curiosity of one chief constable may activate a whole spate of prosecutions in one county. On the other hand, the squeamishness, the diffidence, the robustness, the common sense, perhaps, of a chief constable in another county may mean that there are never any convictions at all in that county. Law of this nature applied in this way must be inequitable.
It is bad law, too, because the penalties that attach to it are utterly senseless. It is true that society knows no other way of dealing with the man who is a compulsive pederast, interfering with little boys, than to remove him from the community. Our knowledge is inadequate. But when we are talking of all these men whose relationships, in private, are with adults who give their consent, we know that to talk of sending these men to prison is, as has been said again and again, as therapeutically useless as incarcerating a sex maniac in a harem. This is the position, and we all know it. There is no rehabilitative element at all in the punishment that is meted out. It must be repugnant to us. It must be repugnant to the least bold penologist to realise that we have these penalties in which we can take no pride, that the penalties for adults committing homosexual offences in private are the most severe.
Although there are no rehabilitative effects flowing from the existing law, we know that there are other effects. One effect, so far as it is positive at all, is clearly to stigmatise thousands of our

citizens as being outlaws and pariahs. We have to face the fact that we are dealing with large numbers of people—many of them, apart from this particular aberation, who are totally law-abiding. In many cases, it means that the homosexual feels that he is almost a selected minority specially chosen and persecuted, and he sees within the wider community, for good or evil, more permissive attitudes. He knows that fornication and adultery, although disapproved of, are not crimes. He sees that in almost the remainder of the Western world discreet homosexuals have been granted legal immunity, whereas in this country the homosexual lives in a land that persists in this eccentric doctrine that such behaviour should attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
I do not regard it, therefore, as surprising that in such a climate of opinion there are not a few homosexuals who almost lapse into near paranoia. It is not surprising, when the law puts them outside the community, that they behave as many do, that they should react as some of them do in an anti-social manner, with all their original feelings of guilt reinforced by repressive laws. I do not think it is suprising that sometimes they protect their self-esteem by absurdly proclaiming their superiority intellectually and artistically to those of us who are mere heterosexuals. This is the reaction which we as a community almost provoke. Is it suprising that when we place them in this position they resort to one of the few means open to them by which they can still regard themselves as having an identity as human beings within society? Then when they make such statements we accuse them of being proselytisers.
I think it is because of the clinical experience that arises from the pastoral care that the churches are so aware of the problems of which I am speaking, that they are aware of the alienation and of the estrangement of the homosexual from the wider community. Thus it is that the Church Assembly, the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, the Roman Catholic Welfare Committee, the Methodist Conference and the Unitarians have all at one time or another called for the implementation of the Wolfenden Report.
Then there is another effect, a dastardly effect, of the present law which cannot


be under-estimated. It is the fact that blackmail is the ambience which wraps itself around the existing law. On the last occasion when we had a debate, it was said that a former Attorney-General, Sir William Jowitt, had estimated that 90 per cent of the cases of blackmail which came to his attention contained an element of homosexual conduct. We know, too, that in the more recent review which the Wolfenden Committee conducted when it took a fixed period of time, it asserted that within that time there were 71 cases reported to the police of which 32 were connected with homosexual offences. We know that this can only be the tip of the iceberg, for any man who reports that he is being blackmailed as a consequence of a homosexual act knows that he is placing himself in jeopardy with the possibility of a prosecution. There are too many documented cases in recent years of hoodlums who, taking advantage of the existing position, have come to believe that they can rob a homosexual with immunity.
It is because of these sorts of reasons, rather than those which I was citing earlier, that the law is in disrepute with the general public. But whatever may have been the position 10 years ago, it cannot be gainsaid, in the light of the national opinion polls, the Gallup Poll and so on—however much we may discount them—that when we see the overwhelming majority of the public who, according to those polls, are in favour of changing the law in accordance with the Wolfenden recommendations, one cannot doubt that there is a severe public reaction to the law as it stands.
I now turn to the Bill itself. Clause 1 lays down the major principle that homosexual offences between consenting adults in private should no longer be an offence. However, I wish to dwell in particular on Clause 1(5), which qualifies subsection (1) of that Clause. The Wolfenden Report recognises that for the preservation of discipline and the protection of those of subordinate rank, the Services may wish to retain Section 6 of the Army Act which provides for punishment of those guilty of disgraceful conduct of an indecent or an unnatural kind. Subsection (5) of the Bill goes much further.
I should perhaps indicate that the Bill has had the benefit of going through another place, where it was introduced

by the noble Lord, the indefatigable Earl of Arran, and therefore it has had the benefit of a prolonged review in the other place. Subsection (5) goes much further than was suggested in the Wolfenden Report in so far as the Navy, the Army and the Air Force may act under numerous Sections. It could be that in addition to Section 66 of the Army Act it would be possible in the Army for proceedings to be taken under Section 64 which refers to officers who behave in a scandalous manner; or, indeed, under Section 69 of the Air Force Act it would be possible, should the Service so wish it, to proceed under a provision which deals with conduct to the prejudice of Air Force discipline.
I have dwelt on that because some very understandable apprehension about the position of the Merchant Navy has been expressed in the reasoned Amendment and elsewhere. It may help if I seek to explain to the House the present position. There is vested in the Master of a ship the common law power to arrest and confine in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time any seamen on a ship if the master has reasonable cause for believing, and in fact believes, that the arrest and confinement are necessary for the preservation of discipline. Nothing in the Bill removes any discretion on the part of the master should he wish to invoke his common law powers to deal with a seaman under his command who commits a homosexual act on his ship. That was explained at some length in the other place, and it no doubt explains why the Bill is in its present form.
But it has been represented to me—and I understand the reasons—that that power of arrest and confinement may be insufficient. It has been suggested to me, for example, that it could be of grave inconvenience for a master to deal with a problem of this kind in this manner, that it could mean that if he put a foot wrong, despite his wide discretion, he might become liable for a civil action for false imprisonment. I do not dismiss those apprehensions; I realise that they are shared by some people and one cannot dismiss them.
It has also been represented to me that ships should be totally excluded from the Bill, that the position should be left as


it is, so that a seaman committing a homosexual act aboard ship can be dealt with just as at present, and that there should be a blanket and complete exemption from the provisions of the Bill of any ship at sea. I do not think that that is possible. It introduces, and must introduce, a large number of unacceptable anomalies. I do not refer only to the obvious anomaly that it could mean that two discreet adults could commit an offence on land with impunity but if they went on a ship and were cruising they could receive a heavy sentence.
I and other hon. Members will be less concerned with that problem. I am concerned that if I or the other sponsors of the Bill yielded on this matter the result could be that a seaman committing an offence on board ship could be brought before the courts by a suing master and be liable to a sentence of life imprisonment, if the sentences remain as they are now, whereas a naval rating who committed the offence would be liable only to a disciplinary charge. That could no doubt lead to his discharge, if the authorities so wished, and possibly to a maximum sentence of two years' confinement.
Once one begins to examine anomalies of that kind, that does not seem a tenable proposition that could commend itself to the House. There is, therefore, a third view which has been put by the hon. Members who sponsor the Amendment. I understand their apprehensions. I have had the benefit of two long meetings with the National Maritime Board, on which the shipowners and all the seafaring organisations are represented, including the seamen. I understand the concern expressed in the Amendment and I want to make it unequivocally clear that if the House is generous enough to send the Bill to Committee I would in no way resist an Amendment founded upon the principle that a merchant seaman should be in no worse or no better a position than a naval rating. I have said that in as clear terms as I can and I hope that it will be received with understanding by those who have sponsored the Amendment. I hope that with that assurance they may find it possible not to pursue it.
Some of the hon. Members who sponsored the Amendment have a history of long contact with the seaman's organisa-

tions, and I therefore know that they will not misunderstand what I now say. I hope that if the Bill goes to Committee I will have their aid and co-operation between now and the Committee stage, for it may be needed. Trade unionists will understand what I am talking about. I do not want to do anything which in any way affects the position of the seaman, who are at present renegotiating the whole position of the Merchant Shipping Act and who are rightly concerned about the disciplinary offences embedded in that Act.

Mr. Simon Mahon: My hon. Friend has seen the National Maritime Board, and I believe that he has seen the unions and shipowners. Were they receptive to the proposal he has just made?

Mr. Abse: Since my hon. Friend presses me—I hope that he will not over-press me—may I say that it is entirely in accord with what the shipowners wish. But when an Amendment comes before the Committee I hope that if it cannot have the active support of the National Union of Seamen the union will at least not feel compelled to resist it. I am sure that my hon. Friend, having understood what I am speaking about, will not press the matter. I hope to have the co-operation of him and other hon. Members in trying to reach a solution which will mean that we can have an Amendment which will not be regarded as a reflection upon the seamen, and at the same time can be regarded as dealing with a necessary disciplinary situation aboard a ship.
Having said that, I move on to some other Clauses, Clause 2 provides for punishments in accordance with the Wolfenden recommendations. Buggery committed by a man over 21 with a consenting youth over 16 will attract a penalty of five years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for acts of gross indecency committed by a man over 21 with a partner below 21 will be increased from two to five years. More, it reaffirms that an act of buggery against a boy can attract life imprisonment, and increases the penalty for a man over 21 attempting to procure or procuring a man under 21 to commit an act of gross indecency. That, too, will now attract five years' imprisonment and not two years.
I believe that those provisions make it abundantly clear that the penalties that will be visited upon those who attempt to corrupt youth will be stern and relentless. No one, except those who are wilfully blind to the nature of our proceedings, can possibly spell out of the Bill any condonation whatever of homosexual conduct which can affect young people in their formative years.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As I understand it, it is no offence where buggery is committed by males over 21. But it is still an offence liable to 10 years' imprisonment if one of the parties be a female. Surely, that should be corrected? I have in mind a particular case of rather grave blackmail which arose out of those circumstances.

Mr. Abse: I am aware that, in spite of the esoteric nature of the argument which my hon. and learned Friend has raised, the point seems to have escaped attention in the other place, but I have no doubt that it will not escape attention now if the Bill goes to Committee. In my view, there is a grave anomaly as between the two cases.
Clause 4 introduces a new principle, namely, that the law relating to the earnings of prostitution be applied to the earnings of male as well as female prostitutes. Clause 5 makes it unequivocally clear that the term "brothel" includes premises for homosexual practices. Clause 6 ends the pursuit of stale offences It makes very sad reading in the Wolfenden Report to find how cases have been pursued after five, six or even more years.
Clause 7 reserves to the Director of Public Prosecutions the right to decide whether a prosecution should be brought against two minors who have committed an act which is an offence and which would be bound to lead to a prosecution if it were committed by someone over 21 against a minor. It will be recalled that the view taken in the Wolfenden Report was that, where behaviour of this kind had been accompanied by vicious behaviour, criminal behaviour, where, for instance, there had been bullying in an institution, there should, perhaps, be a prosecution even though the young people were under the age of 21. Perhaps, on the other hand, there should not be a prosecution when behaviour of this kind

is the physical expression of what is, fortunately, a transient phase. It is accordingly suggested that the Director of Public Prosecutions should have a discretion to deal with cases of this kind in order to ensure uniformity of practice. I hope that this will commend itself to the House.
So much for the Bill, If there are any Second Reading points with which I have not dealt, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), who hopes to catch the eye of the Chair to wind up the debate, will take the opportunity to deal with other points which are raised.
The paramount reason for the introduction of this Bill is that it may at last move our community away from being riveted to the question of punishment of homosexuals which has hitherto prompted us to avoid the real challenge of preventing little boys from growing up to be adult homosexuals. Surely, what we should be preoccupied with is the question of how we can, if it is possible, reduce the number of faulty males in the community. How can we diminish the number of those who grow up to have men's bodies but feminine souls?
It is clear from the number of homosexuals who are about that, unfortunately, little boys do not automatically grow up to be men. Manhood and fatherhood have to be taught. Manhood has to be learnt. The only way for it to be taught is by example. It is true that there are dangers to a boy—a sophisticated House knows it—if an over-possessive mother ties her son to her with a silver cord so that the boy is enveloped in a feminine aura out of which he is never able to break and assert his masculine indepenpendence. We know that this happens. But, equally, it is certain from all the research that has been done that there is particular vulnerability for those who have had jealous or loveless fathers, for those with inadequate fathers, and for those—these are in the greatest danger of all—who are fatherless either by death or desertion. These have no father substitute with whom they can learn to identify.
We hear often about mothercraft. We do not hear a great deal about fathercraft. The children of part-time parents, the children of the ambitious executive returning home after the boy is abed, perhaps, too, the children of over-busy


Members of Parliament who work very hard from early in the morning till late at night and who sometimes say their children grow up without their knowing them—all these young people who, in effect, become de facto fatherless children, are hostages to fortune. In order to become men they need fathers with whom they can identify, not shadowy fathers, not hostile fathers, but fathers with whom they can learn, play and discuss things, fathers from whom they can have proper attention. Boys need more than pocket-money fathers who send them out to the cinema. They need real fathers.
If we pass this Bill, we can be more profitably engaged in discussing how to mobilise our social resources better so that, for example, we could have more male child care officers and far more male teachers. We could consider how we could have a legitimacy law such as the Church has been calling for recently to enable the putative father to give legal recognition to his son and so save the boy from the syndrome, of which we are learning so much, of the dangerously genealogically bewildered child. We could be considering how to do more to help widows with children and unmarried mothers. We could consider how to find ways and means of leading those fatherless children who, with no man about the house to lead them on their way through boyhood, become bewildered and, in the confusions of adolescence, lose their way to manhood.
I believe that continuance of the existing law fosters the illusion that solely by punishment we can prevent homosexuality. In my view, the passage of this Bill would free society from much of its morbid preoccupation with punishment. It could release its energies to the more constructive task of fostering stable family relations, family relations in which children can grow up certain of their identity and confident of their own rôle.

7.37 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I hope that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow all his points. With most of them I disagreed, but I shall deal only with one, to which

He did not, I thought, go into sufficient detail.
As on the previous occasion, the hon. Gentleman's speech today was filled with compassion for these unfortunate people. I believe that he is filled with a sincere and passionate desire to help not only these people but others in unfortunate circumstances. I have heard him on several occasions speak thus.
Many matters divide this side of the House from that, and there are many, indeed, which divide hon. Members on the same side, but some things we have in common. Compassion is one of them. I suppose that most hon. Members, if not all, have been through the fires of life. When we have done that and we see a person in trouble or difficulty, we do not condemn him but rather say "There but for the grace of God go I". But this is not enough. There is a deeper, richer, more enduring compassion, the compassion which steels a man to do his duty.
Any man or woman who has been in authority over his fellow men, particularly if that authority has extended to control of their welfare as well as their work, knows that it is often necessary to act in a way which appears hard, harsh and perhaps even swinish at times. It is only later, perhaps years later, that those who have been under that control will say "Thank God that someone had the courage, the moral fibre, to say 'No' when it would have been so easy to say 'Yes'."
I do not want to deal with the Bill with any degree of emotion. We are here to pass legislation. So I turn now to what seems to me to be a grotesque Bill. As the hon. Member said, Clause 1(5) does not apply to the fighting Services. We heard some of his arguments about the difficulties of the Merchant Navy. As far as the fighting Services are concerned, 500,000–600,000 men will be outside the provisions of the Bill and will remain under the old Acts. It is customary in the Navy—I speak about the Navy because I know it best, but it is probably the case in the other Services as well—that when the sailors go ashore, particularly the younger men, they are addressed by the officer of the watch and warned of the troubles and the difficulties that they may get into when they go ashore. Now we shall have to add to


that. The officer of the watch will have to say to them, "When you go ashore you may indulge in homosexual practices as much as you like, but if you do so when you come back on board and are found out you will be put in prison."

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: On what possible grounds does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that any commanding officer in the Navy would say anything like that to the men?

Captain Elliot: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the officer does not say it, he ought to say it.
I will mention one side effect that may come from this. It is possible for an officer to go ashore and indulge in these practices and when he returns on board he may be called on to serve on a court martial and send a man to prison for indulging in them. I believe that there are the seeds of new corruption in the procedure. In peacetime there are 500,000–600,000 men concerned. In wartime there may be 5 million or 6 million. Is the hon. Member for Pontypool going to propose that in wartime this Bill should be suspended and men not prosecuted and sent to prison, or does he propose to leave the Bill as it is?

Mr. Paget: Did not one frequently in the Navy have people up for gambling in the wrong place? But the fact that one gambled oneself did not prevent one from dealing with that disciplinary offence.

Captain Elliot: The two cases are quite different. I believe that it would be most reprehensible if an officer indulging in these practices ashore was called upon to judge a man doing the same thing on board.
Why should not this Bill be applied to the Services? The Wolfenden Committee said "not" in what seems to me to be rather woolly language. It said:
We recognise that within services and establishments whose members are subject to a disciplinary regime it may be necessary, for the sake of good management "—
whatever he means by that—
and the preservation of discipline and for the protection of those of subordinate rank"—
and so on. That was a very mild statement.
I prefer the statement by Mr. Adair. It was not exactly a minority report; it

was in his reservations, and there is a great deal in his reservations, which are well worth reading:
… as I assess the consequences, increase in the trend towards homosexual practices would be marked and intense, while the effect on the morale of members of the Services would be adverse and corrupting.
That would be the case—I agree with him—in the Services.
So, in spite of what seem to me to be grotesque anomalies, I certainly would not have this Bill applying to the Services. But why should there be this increase in the Services? We have been told by many people that homosexuals are born. Surely the removal of the deterrent in the form of punishment, such as imprisonment, cannot cause more of them to be born. The reason is, in my view, that the majority of homosexuals are made and not born.
But in the Services there is a very tight control of the men. Their training is designed to stiffen their moral fibre and train their bodies and minds. Yet if we remove the deterrent we shall get, in the words of Mr. Adair, a "marked and intense" increase. But in civilian life ashore one has not that tight control, nor the discipline, and so I believe that one will get just as much marked and intense an increase, or even more, if the Bill is passed.
In the words of Mr. Adair:
What this may mean by way of increase in the behaviour can only be matter for speculation, but one thing seems to stand out—homosexual, like most practices, propagate themselves.
I believe that to be true.
I think it is worth considering the side effects of the Bill. We should, I presume, get a succession of plays on television and on the stage on the subject. We should get more books on it. We should get more clubs. I believe that the vice would be looked upon as a normal and natural part of our daily life, and all checks would be gone.
I sincerely believe that if the Bill is passed it will increase homosexual practices and not reduce them. It will not cleanse the national bloodstream; it will corrupt and poison it. It will not bring more happiness; it will bring greater misery. For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject it.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service.
I find myself in some difficulty over the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). I do not regard myself in any way as an expert on this subject, but I have been, as he has been, a member of the Services, I have also been in industry for a very long time, and I know the maritime world pretty well. He was categorical about the way a homosexual was born or made. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him. From my observations I should say that some are made and some are born.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the very generous, lucid and eloquent way in which he moved the Second Reading and for his attitude towards our Amendment. He will appreciate that the Amendment has been signed by eight hon. Members with strong Liverpool and Merseyside connections and therefore with strong connections with the Merchant Navy. All of us who have signed the Amendment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and some hon. Members opposite, feel that it is a reasoned Amendment and not as described last week by Tribune.
I was rather surprised that, because we oppose the Bill and have put down an Amendment, Tribune should have called us reactionary. Indeed, I have no doubt that, if I read the article to the House, it would cause some amusement to hear described as "reactionaries" Liverpool Labour Members who have spent their lifetime working among slum conditions and trying to get rid of the environment in which we were born and who have worked near the seafront all our lives. We have spent our adult

lives in the Labour movement, as did our fathers and grandfathers before us. Yet Tribune says:
Surprisingly, the latest development has not come from that indefatigable bastion of reaction, Sir Cyril Osborne, but from a group of Labour M.P.s. …
We are all mentioned and I want to say to the person here who wrote that article that, if he had gone through with the Merchant Navy what I went through—I would have welcomed support at the time—when I led the whole of the Merchant Navy back to an honourable settlement under very great difficulties in the 1960 strike, as well as playing a not unimportant part in settling the last strike, he would appreciate that I am not a reactionary in any way. I am speaking as a Merseyside man. I put down this reasoned Amendment and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House by virtue of its very reasonableness.
The Amendment states:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to afford the exemption and protection to the Merchant Navy, now provided in the Bill to Her Majesty's Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force, and fails also to take into account'—
and I regard this as the important part—
that this omission will create circumstances which can lead to corruption of young seamen, and to conditions which will be prejudicial to the best interests of the Merchant Navy, and to the discipline and good order at sea which are vital to the best interests of our nation's Merchant Service.
I think that that is a very reasonable Amendment and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool for the manner in which he has dealt with it, but he was unable, in answer to a question I put to him, to tell me that the conciliatory attitude which he promised for the Committee stage has been accepted by the National Union of Seamen.

Mr. Abse: I have explained to the union that this appears to me to require an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act to implement what I want to implement and what my hon. Friend wants to implement. The union is therefore discussing the matter. This creates problems of which my hon. Friend will be fully aware.

Mr. Mahon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation, which helps to some degree. But it does not quite


satisfy me. I do not want to be difficult about the Amendment. I do not want to make it false or a vehicle for just voting against the Bill. I want it treated on its merits. The N.U.S. has been most explicit in requesting the aid of hon. Members who have signed the Amendment and I ask my hon. Friend to consider what I have said.
The General Secretary of the N.U.S., Mr. Hogarth, has written me a letter. It might have been more profitable had an Amendment to the penal clauses of the Merchant Shipping Act been dealt with before this Bill, for this might have clarified the situation. But the letter from Mr. Hogarth states categorically that the representatives of the industry—both ship owners and seafarers' organisations—have already taken this matter up with the Board of Trade and the Home Office. He states, however:
… owing to the fact that it is a Private Members' Bill, whilst they are sympathetic, they are unable to do anything regarding amending this Bill at the present time, and we as an organisation would like to think that something could be done to amend it. In fact, what we would really like to see is entire exemption of the Merchant Service from the Bill.
Thus, the British seamen are asking for entire exemption from the Bill and that is what we are asking. If we could have that assurance we should know where we stood.

Dr. David Kerr: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, would he not agree that it is implicit that the letter calls not for the defeat of this Bill on Second Reading but for the inclusion of a Clause exempting the merchant seamen?

Mr. Mahon: I would be very willing to give such an undertaking. There is no suggestion in Mr. Hogarth's letter that, because of this aspect, the whole Bill should be defeated. It is logical that, if this Amendment could not be included, the Bill would stand a chance of being defeated by those who believe that the Amendment is necessary. The letter from Mr. Hogarth goes on
I don't think there is much need at this juncture for me to stress the fact that seamen spend most of their lives in a very confined space, and nothing could happen aboard ship which could be considered private to the rest of a ship's company.
It asks for the help of M.P.s in getting the Amendment accepted. I should like

to know why the Bill refers to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force but forgets the Merchant Navy. I have one explanation but, with my background of the sea and the Merchant Service, I cannot understand why it was not included in the first place. A memorandum I have from seafaring organisations says that the Bill is dealing with
… homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. In the special circumstances of shipboard life there is little real privacy …
In any kind of ship, whether it be cargo or passenger, there is very little privacy indeed. Many of us have seen great improvements in seagoing conditions and hope to see more. There was a time, when my father was at sea, when there were 100 or 150 men in the fo'c'sle. Indeed, I can assure the House that my family has had such strong connections with the sea that ships involved in disasters like the "Lusitania", the "Titanic" and the "Gargarian" and others all had Mahons and relations of Mahons on board. I remember when I started work in 1929 or 1930, how horrible the conditions still were. There has been a tremendous improvement since then and I pay tribute to the Board of Trade and others responsible. But there is still great overcrowding and there is no possibility at sea of privacy. If an offence is committed at sea, it is not private. One knows at sea what happens in very quick time. It is rather like the House of Commons in one or two respects.

Captain W. Elliot: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a lot of privacy in the Merchant Navy, which would explain why the Mechant Navy has not been included? For example, on a passenger ship there are many cabins which are private, and, presumably, the passengers would be exempt from the punishment whereas merchant seamen might be sent to prison.

Mr. Mahon: I take the point, but I do not agree that there is a great deal of privacy even on a great passenger liner. How news travels about, even news about what the passengers are doing, is amazing. Anyone who has lived close to the docks as I have, would know that news flows fast and free. I agree that there could be difficulties with a distinction between passengers and crew, but at this stage I want only to deal with the Merchant Navy.
It may not be generally known that the average age in the merchant service is only 27, a very young average. It is certainly much lower than it was in the years which I mentioned earlier. It shows what a large proportion of young men the service has. The normal distractions of shore life do not exist on board ship. Men live and work together every hour of the day for long periods and in such circumstances overt forms of homosexuality could be a very corrupting influence.
In merchant ports, such as that which I represent, the fathers and mothers who now encourage their sons—and their daughters—to go to sea would not be so keen to advise their children to take up the sea as a career if the Bill were to be passed without the Amendment. In this country, economically as in every other way, we need a Merchant Navy which has been and will be of the highest possible order in the world. If we do not get the right men, if, for one reason or another, the good men leave the sea or are not attracted to it, the effect on the service will be extremely deleterious.

Mr. John Tilney: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of these sons are under 21?

Mr. Mahon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have with me in the building the discharge book of a sailor who spent 53 years at sea, one of the members of my own family, starting at the age of 12. There are now boys in Liverpool who are most anxious to go to sea at the earliest possible opportunity and who, at the age of 15, are being trained in the catering and deck departments, waiting their time to go to sea, as boys of their age always have, with the great love of the sea and of the maritime service which we all share.

Mr. Abse: As my hon. Friend says that his opposition is not fractious, will he allow me to interrupt to the extent of reading a letter which I sent on 7th November to the National Maritime Board—I do not know when my hon. Friend's letter was received.
I said:
It will be recalled that I sought to explain to the deputation that my Bill as it stands has protected the position of the Armed

Forces by making it unequivocally clear that any man, in the event of my Bill becoming law, could still be charged under the Army Act (or under the Navy or Air Force Acts) with disgraceful conduct of an indecent or unnatural kind. In view of the concern which you expressed to me, I offered to attempt to amend my Bill so that a Clause could be added amending the Merchant Shipping Acts so that the Merchant Navy could be given the same protection as the Bill accords to the Navy, Army and Air Force; and this would be done by making disgraceful and unnatural conduct a disciplinary offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
I made it abundantly clear, however, at our meeting that I was not prepared to attempt to do this without the full agreement of the Seamen's Union. The Representative of the Shipowners present appeared to agree in principle that such an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act should come about but the Seamen's Union representatives naturally wished to take instructions from their colleagues. I have today heard from the Seamen's Union, that they will not agree to any such Clause amending the Merchant Shipping Acts. In the circumstances, I thought it right to inform you that I am not pursuing this aspect of the matter; but if as a result of any further talks between the shipowners representatives and the seamen's representatives agreement of the Union is secured to my attempting to introduce such an amendment, then my offer of course remains open.
Since this letter, I have seen the Maritime Board, including the union representatives, and I am waiting for them to come back to me. What more can I do to meet my hon. Friend's point?

Mr. Mahon: I am in the same position as my hon. Friend is. I am sticking to my brief and he is sticking to his. This is not the first time that the shipping unions have disagreed with the shipowners. I have found myself in that position many times. I can understand some of the shipowners, but the seamen's union is not satisfied with the position as it is. In any event, my hon. Friend is asking for an Amendment to an Act of which he does not have control. If I could get a categorical undertaking tonight from the Government Front Bench, we could see precisely where we were. I am not being fractious, but we do not have that undertaking from the Board of Trade. I have been pressing for the whole of my life for an Amendment of the penal Clauses of the 1889 Act—doing so has become a family tradition. I have made more speeches on the Liverpool Dock Road about the penal Clauses of the Merchant Shipping Acts than I care to remember. If such an Amendment were


made, we might be in a better position now and able to get along more easily and in a more conciliatory fashion. But until vie get that, we cannot and will not accept the very charitable and conciliatory offer which my hon. Friend has made.
Unless we get what we are asking, unless the Merchant Navy is given special conditions and special considerations, then I have it on the highest possible authority that the service could become an attractive venue for homosexuals. Like hon. Members who have spoken earlier, I have a great deal of compassion—I have had it all my life—for people who have their particular difficulties in this respect. I must say that I cannot fully understand their difficulties. However, I do not want corruption to spread among seamen or in the industry itself. The presence of homosexuals could give rise to serious conflicts at sea and jealousies could even lead to violence.
I put this seriously to the House. One often reads or hears about someone having disappeared at sea, but that is not always the case. We all know of cases when, deplorably enough, something like this has happened. It can happen at sea. There are no back doors at sea. It is an entirely different world. Once a ship leaves port, conditions are totally different. That is why we are asking for these guarantees. Being at sea is not like being in the Imperial Hotel, or any other hotel, or any other private place. I speak with great authority on this. Being at sea is an entirely different world. I understand the sea and I understand the seamen if I understand nothing else.
There are tremendous difficulties about trying to discipline a crew. There is nothing wrong with discipline, and one has to have it at sea or in any other aspect of society, reasonable and good discipline. I did not find the Army irksome when I was in it. I was not half as well disclined in the Services as I was by industry and poverty. Poverty is the greatest disciplinary force in the world, and we were very well disciplined. I found the Army a piece of cake compared with industry. It is difficult for the master of a ship to maintain discipline, and this Bill will make it worse. The same applies to chief engineers or chief stewards.
These unfortunate people are attracted to catering departments as a rule. Maybe

there is something in this for those people who want to study such things. They are not so often found in the engine room or the deck service, but usually in the catering service, with great respect to that service. These are the difficulties with which the seamen's union have to contend. These are facts, and I know that they are true. If these people were attracted by the kind of protection they would have at sea, matters would become very difficult indeed. Determined efforts have been made in the past to avoid any growth of this difficulty for these unfortunate people. The Maritime Board, the owners and the unions have been watchful and reasonably successful. If the application of the Bill to shipping caused the work of which I am talking to be undone, there would undoubtedly he a tendency for the good men to leave the sea.
Unless we can get this undertaking, then we will press this Amendment. This is where my great interest in the maritime service comes out. I want the best possible recruitment to this service, and I believe that every hon. Member of this House does too. It is important that we do the best that we can for young men and that we stop them from being corrupted if we can. It is important for the benefit of the country, for the economy of the country and for the high standards and traditions of this service, in peace and war, maintained through tremendous difficulties. If we cannot get this protection for the young boys and girls who will be recruited into this service, then we will press our Amendment and will vote against the Bill.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: I am sure that we all admire the Merchant Navy and the work which the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has done in this connection, But it seems to be that he has erected what is essentially a Committee point into a Second Reading point. I did not follow all of his arguments exactly. I was quite unable to see why, if one legalises homosexuality on land, that should drive homosexuals to sea. It does not seem to be at all likely to happen, particularly as the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who moved this Bill so admirably has pointed out, this is liable to be made illegal at sea. Whether or not that is so this is


essentially a Committee point. Whatever our admiration may be of the National Union of Seamen we ought to keep a sense of proportion. It may or may not be right that the N.U.S. should be able to bring our economy more or less to a standstill but it should not have a veto on our social legislation as well.

Mr. Simon Mahon: The National Union of Seamen has had one strike in 60 years—one strike in the whole of its history.

Mr. Gilmour: I was not criticising, I was merely pointing out that this had happened. I think that we ought to preserve a suitable sense of proportion about the union's activities in connection with this Bill, because in spite of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and the hon. Member for Bootle have said, this Bill relates primarily to the land, where most people are situated, and not to the sea. I was quite unable to understand the directions which the officer of the watch would have to give according to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton.
Surely it is the case that there are a number of other countries where homosexuality is legal? Do their navies find that this is an enormous difficulty? Surely it is the case that there are any number of things that are perfectly permissible on land and by those in the Armed Forces when on leave but which are totally impermissible when they are serving in the Forces, whether on sea or land. For one thing members of the Forces are encouraged to wear uniform, members of political parties are not. All sorts of matters of public decency are illegal in the Forces but are perfectly legal in civilian life.

Captain W. Elliot: I do not know why my hon. Friend is making quite so much of this. It is quite a simple thing about warning the sailor or perhaps the soldier as well. Many of them are pretty young and inexperienced and one warns them about a lot of elementary things when they go ashore. Surely this anomaly of the practice being legal ashore but illegal on board is likely to lead them into trouble unless it is drummed into them.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not follow that because if they are young it will not be legal on land and secondly the standards of behaviour on ship or in the Army or Air Force are quite different from those required in civilian life. This happens in other countries and I do not see that it is a great difficulty.
I support this Bill because the present law seems to have almost everything possible wrong with it. It is unjust, unenforceable, hypocritical, illogical and an invitation to further crime. It is unjust because it singles out, quite arbitrarily a particular set of people for their particular habits. It is unenforceable because there are too many of these people to enable the law to be enforced. We do not know how many there are but, if there are half a million and we were able to catch them, we would not have any idea of what to do with them. But we are not able to catch them. There is this fantastic disparity, pointed out in the Wolfenden Report, between something like 100 prosecutions and 500,000 people at least engaged in this activity.
The present law amounts to an annual ritual sacrifice with the victims selected purely by chance, at the rate of about one to 5,000 or one to 10,000.
It is hypocritical because everyone knows homosexuals and everyone knows that there are homosexuals in all walks of life. People do not think much the worse of them, they certainly do not consider them criminals. But the law treats them as such and when one of them is caught he is sent to prison for doing what everyone knows he has been doing for a great many years and for doing what something like half a million or a million people are doing regularly. That seems to me to be taking the law beyond its normal level of acceptable hypocrisy.
The law is illogical because it treats one form of sexual activity differently. There is no logical basis which I know for saying that male homosexuality is more damaging to the social fabric or the nation's bloodstream, as it has been called, than female homosexuality or adultery. Yet the law treats it as though it is uniquely anti-social. The blackmail point which has been shrugged off is important because the law is an invitation to crime. There are people who say that there will still be blackmail


even if the Bill is passed, which, incidentally, is an admission that one of the arguments against the Bill is bad because it implicitly concedes that there would still be social condemnation even after it were passed.
But the blackmail point is important because if somebody goes to the police he does not know that he will not end up in prison instead of the blackmailer. It is odd that this should happen, but police forces still act in this way, or if they do not they did until quite recently. If the Bill were passed, that situation could no longer occur. A man could go to the police and he would never have to pay up again. Blackmail would become for homosexuality, as it is for other things, and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) used to say when I was his pupil at the Bar, purely a voluntary tax. For homosexuality, blackmail is not a voluntary, but an involuntary tax. By passing this law, we should make it voluntary again and at least would be abolishing one tax.
Coming to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton, it was thought by Albert the Great that homosexuality was as contagious as disease and by Justinian that homosexuality created earthquakes. I do not suppose that anybody believes that today, but the present incidence of homosexuality is irrelevant to the law.
My hon. and gallant Friend talked about the incidence of homosexuality going up because of homosexuals propagating themselves, but he must consider the situation in other countries. Germany is the only other country in Western Europe which has such a law. Does he, and do the opponents of the Bill, think that English people are significantly more prone to this vice than people in other countries and that they are kept in check only by the law? Or does he think that there is very much less homosexuality in this country because of the law?

Captain W. Elliot: I was quoting the words of Mr. Adair, one of the members of the Wolfenden Committee. But from my experience of controlling these practices in a large company of men, I am convinced that the deterrent of the present law—the action one takes to control it, to stamp it out—is very effective.

Mr. Gilmour: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend's experience was, but if he had to stamp it out that is a fair indication that it was there, although it was forbidden. I do not quite follow the logic of his remark.
There is a hidden assumption among some of the opponents of the Bill that homosexuality is inherently very attractive and more enjoyable than normal sexual relations. They seem to think that once the present law is abolished a lot of previously law-abiding heterosexuals will shout "hurrah" and become homosexuals. If they do not assume this, why are they worried by this Bill?
I support the Bill because it brings the law on homosexuality into line with the law on the rest of sexual matters, because it brings it into line with that of most other countries in Europe, and, above all, because it brings it into line with common sense.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) put the case in favour of the Bill so admirably that I hesitated in rising to speak. However, having got up to speak, I shall address the House very briefly as the hon. Gentleman has put my points so well.
I am well aware of the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) about seamen and life on board ship, and we paid great attention to what he said. But I think he was a bit illogical. He has not moved an Amendment suggesting a change in the Bill; he has moved an Amendment rejecting the Bill, which is quite different. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said on behalf of the sponsors that the principle embodied in the Amendment would be acceptable—in other words, to put the Merchant Navy in the same position as the Royal Navy. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, that principle will be embodied in the Bill on condition that the National Union of Seamen agrees with the Amendment. I do not know how much further we can go.

Mr. Simon Mahon: And subject to the amending of another Bill over which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has no control.

Mr. Strauss: One can put forward whatever new Clause one likes in the Bill. There is no reason I know of why, with the agreement of the Government, a Bill of this sort cannot amend another Bill. But my hon. Friend is advocating the rejection of the whole Bill. I understand his point of view, because he voted against a similar Bill previously. But we should be clear that the principle for which he is asking is accepted by the sponsors of the Bill who will do their utmost to incorporate it in the Bill.

Captain W. Elliot: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how we would get over the question of civilians and passengers at sea in merchant vessels vis-à-vis the crews?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle put forward a suggestion concerning merchant seamen. It had nothing to do with passengers or civilians on board ship.

Captain Elliot: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has understood the point. What is the position concerning merchant seamen and passengers indulging in these practices? If the Bill covers the Merchant Navy, seamen can be sent to prison. Presumably for the civilian the act would be perfectly legal.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that we can go further than say that the man in the Merchant Marine would be in the same position as the naval rating in the Royal Navy. That is what we are providing.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) was convinced that if the Bill were passed the most terrible things would happen and that the moral fibre of the nation would be weakened, or something of that sort. I wish that people who speak like that would remember that until the 1866 Act was passed and, by an accident, an Amendment was included which made prosecution against homosexuality permissible, there was no law against homosexuals. During the great, vigorous Victorian age, with its great virile people, building up the Empire, increasing its industrial production and all the rest, there were no prosecutions for homosexuality.

Mr. Charles Pannell: 1885, not 1866.

Mr. Strauss: Yes, 1885. There were no prosecutions.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: On a point of accuracy. Although I am in agreement on the general premise, there was a Henrician Statute penalising buggery, although there was not an offence of gross indecency. That offence, however, was on the Statute Book.

Mr. Strauss: I think I am right in saying that there was no Act which made it a criminal offence for consulting male adults to have intercourse together in private. There were certainly no prosecutions during that period. I know that in the Middle Ages there were certain ecclesiastical offences, but as regards the limited point which the hon. Member and others have made, no such Act was in operation in this country. There were no prosecutions, and the country flourished.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of accuracy and information. It is not fundamental to the argument, but am I not right in thinking that buggery was a common law felony?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): We cannot have interventions on interventions.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I might attempt to help, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the position was that it was a statutory felony under a Statute of Henry VIII.

Mr. Strauss: Some of us want to go forward and not back.
The Bill wants to do something quite simple: to remove from the criminal code an offence which is not enforced but which, nevertheless, brands about half a million of our citizens as criminals. It is a blackmailers' charter. Those were the words used about it by the Recorder of London when the former Bill was passed. The existing law has proved to be a blackmailers' charter and, so far from helping those who suffer the abnormality of homosexuality, it impedes the possibility of cure. That is the view not only of church workers who are familiar with the problem, but of the psychiatrists and psychologists who have had great experience of this problem.
That this law is unenforceable is obvious. Everybody must agree with that, however much people may dislike its repeal. I suggest, however, that the present situation, because the law is unenforceable, is not tolerable for Parliament. Parliament would never pass a new law which it knew to be unenforceable or enforceable only at the whim of a chief constable who may or may not desire to operate it. If we are not prepared to bring in a new law of that sort, I suggest that for the same reason, if we find an existing law unenforceable, thereby bringing the legislature and criminal justice into disrepute, we must surely want to repeal it.
It would have been done long ago, shortly after the Wolfenden Report was published, about ten years ago, but for the fact that, alas, it is much easier to pass a criminal Act than to repeal one. We know too that on a subject such as this, when the behaviour concerned arouses such powerful emotions in those who condemn it as to override rational argument, it is very difficult to make a change. We hope, however, that in view of public opinion and the fact that the Bill has been passed in another place and has already been passed by this House, the time has come when we will he able to take the final step in repealing this indefensible and unenforceable law.
It has been said that the existing law gives rise to a great deal of blackmail. But we know only of those cases that come into court. We have been told that most blackmail cases are concerned in one way or another with homosexual behaviour. We do not know how many cases do not come into court, but many of us are aware from personal knowledge and experience how widespread this blackmail practice is. The existence of the present law gives blackmailers marvellous opportunities, on which they flourish.
It is true that if we pass the Bill today, blackmail will not be entirely eliminated as homosexuality is condemned by the majority of people, but it will mitigate it. The fear of imprisonment, if a case is reported to the police, will disappear. Victims will be able to go to the police and expose those who are attempting to blackmail them without the risk of prosecution themselves.
There is a further and very important aspect of this matter which has not yet been mentioned. It is the difficulty of helping homosexuals as long as the present law remains as it is. A previous Archbishop, when talking about homosexuals and the condition in which they live described it as,
… a nightmare world into which there can be no entrance of the forces of righteousness until the offences are made not criminal".
It is largely for that reason that the leaders of all the churches have said that the law should be changed and that, whatever the morality aspect of the matter may be, it is wrong to make a matter of conscience such as this subject to the criminal code. The churches, too, are animated by a deep sense of compassion for homosexuals. It is a compassion which I should have thought every hon. Member must share. They are already suffering under a dire handicap through no fault of their own. They are handicapped through their inability to lead normal happy lives and have families, which the majority of the community are able to do. They are also frequently the subject of derision. The Bill obviously will not free them from these disadvantages, but at least it will relieve them from being criminals under the law and from the fear of blackmail which haunts them all their lives.
It is unfortunately a characteristic of societies to persecute minorities who do not conform in colour, race, religion or habits with the majority members. The more civilised the society, the less the persecution, and the degree of tolerance of minorities is a measure of the civilised quality of a society. One section of society in Great Britain is still persecuted, but to a much less degree than it was previously owing to a remarkable change in public opinion, which has become more understanding and sympathetic, and because of the publicly expressed views of leaders of the churches, the moral guardians of the nation, and of the experts in these matters.
The greater study of this abnormality made by most of the leaders of the professions in the departments of sociology, psychology and psychiatry of our universities and hospitals, has caused them to declare themselves strongly in favour of the repeal of the present law along the


lines proposed by the Bill before us. I cannot doubt that this House will come to the same conclusion tonight.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Although I take a different view from that of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), I thought that he addressed himself to the heart of the argument, and I hope that I shall be able to refer to some of the points that he has made.
I want first to associate myself with those hon. Members who have praised the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) for the way in which he has moved the Second Reading of his Bill. I think that the House feels that he strikes the perfect balance between stolid normality and flamboyant eccentricity which has enabled him to do it so well. He assisted the House greatly by the way in which he put it forward, and I was particularly glad that in his speech we did not hear what we have had before from champions of this Measure—a lot of talk about how everyone recognises that homosexuality is, of course, a sin. I have always felt that that sort of humbug spoiled the case of those who were advocating this Measure. I was glad that it was absent today.
I support the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) and his hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber, but if he divides the House against giving the Bill a Second Reading, I shall vote for his Amendment, although I am primarily against the Bill lock, stock, and barrel, and root and branch. I am against it out of respect for the opinion, as I understand it, of what I believe to be the vast majority of the people whom I was elected to this House to represent, people who may not be long-haired intellectuals, but who are the men and women who make the world go round. Their case may be deficient in logic, but I believe that it ought to be supported, for the reasons, which I shall give.
I should first like to criticise the Government, if the right hon. Lady will not think it too harsh of me, for giving time to this Bill in the first place, because I think that it represents a questionable order of priorities. I may be right, or I may be wrong about that, but it under-

mines such little confidence as I have in the Government.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile the two statements he has just made, first congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on introducing the Measure, and then criticising the Government for enabling him. to do so?

Mr. Iremonger: I am a great admirer of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) in certain respects, but he is not doing justice to himself. He either did not listen, or he did not understand. I congratulated the hon. Member for Pontypool on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I thought that it was a first-class piece of advocacy for a case which I oppose. I oppose the Bill, but I think that the Second Reading was moved as well as it could be. Does the hon. Gentleman accept the distinction?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I still do not know what the hon. Gentleman is grumbling about.

Mr. Iremonger: I am congratulating the hon. Member for Pontypool on the way in which he introduced a bad Measure. I am criticising the Government for giving time for a bad Measure. I think that it demonstrates a lamentable order of priorities.
I think that the Government are susceptible to criticism on another ground, namely, that if they support the Measure, if they think it is important, they ought themselves to have taken the odium of introducing it by putting it into the Criminal Justice Bill, or of introducing it themselves in its present form. They should not do as they did with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nielson and Colne. They should not give time for something which they know the country opposes, and enable it to go through, but allow themselves a loophole electorally by not taking responsibility for it. I criticise and condemn them for that. I think that the Bill is bad, but it is worse of the Government to give time for it without taking full responsibility.

Dr. Hugh Gray: What evidence is there for the hon. Gentleman'


contention that the country is opposed to the Bill?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman and I are in the same position. We neither of us know. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the country is in favour of the Bill, he ought to say to his right hon. Friend that it is a pity the Government did not adopt a popular and—as they thought—right Measure.

Dr. Gray: I am congratulating the Government on allowing a free vote on the Bill, and I take it that that was their reason for giving time for the Bill and allowing us to discuss it.

Mr. Iremonger: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should use this rather disreputable phrase "a free vote", because it has implications which I and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would not care to accept. If the hon. Gentleman is congratulating the Government for allowing a "free vote", he is on another point. I am not criticising the Government for not putting the Whips on. I am criticising them for giving time to the Bill.

Dr. Gray: I am congratulating them on both counts.

Mr. Iremonger: We differ on that. I like to give way to hon. Members, but to give way does impede the progress of the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House. I hope that the House will not think that I am ungenerous if I say that I will proceed without taking further time over interruptions.
I want to deal with the important point about blackmail. I notice that the proponents of the Bill want to have it both ways. They say that this will not entirely rule out blackmail and yet the argument that it will rule out blackmail is put forward as a prime one in favour of the Bill. My view is that the first point is correct. I am not convinced that blackmailers will be greatly discouraged by the passing of the Bill. A blackmailer blackmails his victim now in respect of homosexuality not because he is able to threaten him with the possibility of a conviction in court but because he knows that the practice is socially unacceptable and will disgrace the person in respect of whom he may give information.
I do not believe that, if this Bill is passed, many men who are subject to

blackmail by reason of their homosexuality will say that it does not matter now. Not many will say, "You can tell my boss. You can tell my family. You can tell my friends. I don't care. What's more, I'll run you in." In my opinion only a small minority of homosexuals threatened by blackmailers will he prepared to say that they do not mind. That being so, it seems to me that one of the strongest arguments put forward in favour of the Bill does not stand examination.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: If the Bill is passed, the man who is blackmailed has a counterattack by being able to threaten the man who is blackmailing him that he will go to the police.

Mr. Iremonger: The blackmailer still holds the trump card, which is to give information to the people who are in a position to ruin the life of the victim.

Dr. M. S. Miller: It will have to be proved.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) says that it will have to be proved. If blackmailers had to prove everything, nobody would be frightened of them. Therefore, the blackmailer argument is not as conclusive as it is supposed to be.
I am less impressed than many who support the Bill by the argument that the present state of the law leaves a substantial minority with a burning grievance against society. This is an over-simplification of a social problem. The homosexual who feels that he is rejected by society does so not because of any laws but because, rightly or wrongly, he is rejected. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to compassion. That is something which is more prevalent in the House, perhaps, than in society at large outside. The grievance of the homosexual minority is that they are kept away from the mainstream of human relationships and are regarded by their fellow human beings—who understand their condition—as being somehow different and unacceptable. Whether that is right or wrong is another question, but to suggest that altering the law will remove from those people the blight on their lives and their grievance against society is to underrate the depth of their problem. That argument, therefore, does not commend itself to me, either.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the present state of the law is the result of a purely fortuitous Amendment slipped in during a debate by Mr. Labouchere late at night, without debate or a consideration of the serious difficulties to which it would give rise. I concede this point to the proponents of the Bill. If we could have life and history all over again and could go back to that moment in the 1880s when the House was considering that Measure and Labouchere popped in that Amendment, there would be hon. Members here today who—if they could have been there—would have said, "Let us not do this. It won't work out. This Measure will give rise to greater evils than it will cure".
I will concede that. But the trouble is that the law is the law and is accepted by the community, rightly or wrongly, as representing the moral standards and the strength of the social fabric. This House cannot right a wrong just by changing the law. It has to consider the psychological implications on society of this House coming forward, as the public will see it—[Interruption.]—With respect, many men and women whom I know will see this House coming forward as "Authority", as Parliament, as the legislature, and saying, "We are giving our blessing to sexual licence and to practice which you regard as abominable."—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman must try to recognise the difference between saying that we approve of something, and, on the other hand, saying that we do not believe that it is criminal. The two things are quite different. To say that it is not criminal is not to have approval of it.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman is too clever. He sees the distinction, but many of his constituents will not—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Gentleman should try.

Mr. Iremonger: I accept the hon. Gentleman's reproof. I should try, and, in my humble way, I do try. I am prepared to go on trying, but this is a long and uphill battle. To do this—to pass the Bill—now would do more harm psychologically than it would do good legalistically.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a very large proportion of people who are homosexuals at present marry in order to erect a facade of normality, that this gives rise to terrible tragedies for the children of the marriages and for the wives and that this Measure could end that situation?

Mr. Iremonger: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We all know of this: we have seen it happening. Where I differ from the hon. Lady is in her confidence that this Measure will cure that. I cannot be convinced in my own mind. Of course, one cannot have certainty about this, but must make up one's own mind, or there would be no necessity for debate. I am not convinced that the good that it would do in that respect and in the blackmail respect and the grievance respect and so on is as great as the evil I see it doing—this is purely my opinion—to the confidence of society in this House and in its institutions in upholding the fabric of society.
That is my argument. I may be wrong, but I am not prepared to move from it in my present state of ignorance and opinion. I will therefore vote against the Bill and I wish that the House would also vote against it. I wish that the Labouchere Amendment had never been passed, but as it has been passed, I am afraid that all the evil it has done cannot be removed by simply repealing it.
I do not accept, either, the reproof of the proponents of the Bill who say, "Oh, but how illogical! What about lesbians?" It may be illogical and if the Labouchere Amendment had included lesbians, I would present just the same argument about repealing it with respect to them. I am glad that it did not include lesbians, but my central objection to the Bill is not met by the recognition that lesbians are not at present victims of the law in the way that male homosexuals are.
There is, in any case, a certain sociological logic in taking a different view of lesbianism. I would be prepared to accept the argument that the personality and nature of women are distinguishable from the personality and nature of men—because of the strength of their sexual initiatives and drives—and that the effect in


society of lesbian women is not so potent as that of homosexual men. Nobody knows or hears of women being corrupted on a large scale by lesbian women, whereas I do not think that even the most doughty champion of the Bill would deny that many male homosexuals are of the proselytising type. Even they have very great misgivings—they talk about homosexuality as a tragedy, and they recognise the danger of the corruption of the young, for example—about the propensity of male homosexuals to try to spread their practice among others. I do not think that that can be denied. To make such a denial, the hon. Member for Pontypool would have to go back on the principle on which the Clauses increasing penalties for corruption of young people are based.
I have always felt in arguments about the Bill that the intellectual case and the case in logic was overpoweringly strong. I have always felt that the case against the Bill was emotional and intellectually weak. To oppose the Bill, I feel, is considered intellectually a rather disreputable exercise. But as hon. Members often find when they are dealing with legislation. human nature is so complex that unfortunately these matters cannot be dealt with in the same way as that in which a mechanic can deal with the running of a motor car.
I am afraid that it comes to this: we have a choice of evils and the House must decide whether it will remedy bad law by bad psychology. There must be a choice made between two evils and I opt, personally, for what I consider to be the lesser evil. I do not deny that this is far from an ideal solution. I do not think that the present practice of the law is satisfactory. I should like to see us get rid of it. But I would rather see it wither away through a general disinclination on the part of chief constables to prosecute—far from ideal but slightly less dangerous to society than the Bill. If I may be excused a rather disagreeable medical metaphor, I would rather leave the scab on the wound to wither and fall off than wrench it off prematurely and cause a haemorrhage at this stage. This seems to be the alternative with which the House is presented.
Nor am I moved by a further argument used by the hon. Member for Pontypool

about sending homosexuals to prison being such a bad thing. Of course it is a bad thing, but the Bill does not affect that situation. Under the new Criminal Justice Bill it is extremely unlikely that any homosexuals convicted as such will come in the category of persons who will go to prison anyway. So it is not as though without this Bill we shall have prisons teeming with homosexuals. Many people who go to prison may be homosexuals anyway; it is not only people who are convicted of homosexuality who cause homosexual problems in prisons. In any case, the Bill makes provision for pederasts to go to prison, and they will be in prison with young men of 20 to 21 who will be as much liable to their predatory inclinations as to those of other homosexuals who might theoretically be in prison if the Bill did not go through.
A further argument against the Bill—which makes me pause more than does the argument about the merchant navy, even—is that about the universities. An anomalous and distressing situation will arise in universities where there are young men under 21 and young men over 21. There is bound to be a dividing line amongst the homosexuals at the university and a coming of age—"Now it's all right." I do not at all relish the thought of there being illegal homosexuals under 21 and legal ones over 21 and a crossing of the line ceremony being performed with pederastic celebrations in university colleges.
I am afraid that we shall be saddled with the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal, whether or not the Bill is passed. The Bill will make the situation in the life of the homosexual neither better nor worse. The real help which the homosexual needs is not within the scope of this Bill or of any legislation. It is not within the scope of administrative action which Governments can take, answerable to this House. I do not think the present homosexual population are people for whom one can do a lot. People have talked about their going for help and so on. People to whom I have talked, who have most to do with homosexuals, are sceptical about the actual desire which homosexuals have for being helped. In any case, I am not sure that the lot of existing homosexuals is not a lost cause—water over the dam.
What I am concerned with is the health and strength of society and the structure of life, the relationships between human beings that make society sane, healthy and beautiful. That is something which can only be ensured in respect of future generations. I do not think it can be ensured in respect of people who are already mature.
What worries me is the point that the hon. Member for Pontypool made towards the end of his speech—the total lack of any social initiative to grapple with the root and mainspring of homosexual disabilities which I am sure—I think this is universally recognised—resides in the power and influence of the individual fathers and mothers in respect of their children.
Although one hears a lot talked about sex education in schools, what I would like to see in schools, instead of sex education, is a little more education in the realities and the responsibilities of parenthood, for fathers and for mothers. Future fathers should be warned of the dangers of an all-too-prevalent attitude—in our society, at any rate—that there is something unmanly in men concerning themselves with their wives' and children's problems and taking their place in the home as the father who is seen there as the leader of the family. I should like girls at school to be warned specifically against the terrible danger of becoming too devoted to their sons. If one looks at the pattern of life of homosexuals known in history and known to oneself, it is an infallible concommitant of the condition that there has been an undue and unhealthy attachment to the mother and an absence of identification with the father. These are commonplaces of social psychology which everybody knows. The House would do better to concern itself with the initiatives which might be taken, through the Home Office or through the Department of Education and Science, with this kind of social education for future generations than in trying to remedy bad law by bad psychology.

9.3 p.m.

Dr. David Owen: This debate has been remarkable in that no one who either opposes or supports the Bill has claimed a monopoly of com-

passion or sincerity. I think all of us realize—I support the Bill and I realise fully—that those who oppose the Bill do so from deeply-felt feelings, having thought about the matter a great deal.
I wish to take up a number of points that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has mentioned. I understand that the main burden of his speech was that the time is not ripe and that he does not like the situation. He wished that it had never been brought about. He is worried that it would be psychologically damaging to the country at the present time to introduce such legislation. This is a fair argument and one which people who support the Bill have got to meet effectively.
It has always been the argument that the time is not ripe on practically all forms of social legislation, whether it be abortion law reform or homosexual law reform. When the Wolfenden Report first came out this was put about, I think reasonably, at that time. There was a lot of evidence that the general public, and even enlightened general public, had not analysed the problems of homosexuality to the extent that they should have done.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North made a lot in his speech of public opinion. He said that the country does not want the Bill and that he is convinced that the majority of his constituents do not want it. There is that view, but I ask him to take note of what little scientific evidence we have on this matter. We may not like opinion polls, but an opinion poll in 1965 showed that two-thirds of the country wanted reform of the law as set out in the Bill. The climate of opinion has changed dramatically since the Wolfenden Report and I think that the time is ripe for the Bill.
Let us deal with the suggestion that it would be psychologically damaging to the country to show that the House condones homosexuality. If that feeling comes out from the debate it will be the direct result of misreporting, because no hon. Member, whatever viewpoint he or she put forward, has condoned homosexual behaviour. The Bill lays down very clearly that under certain circumstances the House is increasing the penalties, that it is trying to stamp out corruption of youth and minors, which is


possibly the most important element in the Bill. I hope that due emphasis is given in reports of the debate to Clause 2, because what we are legislating in Clause 1 is only one aspect of the problem. To a certain extent, that answers the hon. Gentleman's claim about psychological damage.
A number of other points have been raised in the debate, and I wish to say a little about the merchant seaman. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is well known for what he has done for the merchant seamen. and the respect in which he is held extends far further than Merseyside and goes all the way down to Plymouth. He put his case very reasonably, and anyone who comes from a port knows full well many of the problems that he mentioned.
The question of the merchant seaman is a problem, but the remarkable point was that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has gone out of his way to meet the feeling that exists in the House that the merchant seaman is a special case. He has said, as far as he can at this stage, that he will meet this point in Committee. He will attempt, as far as possible, either to adapt the Merchant Shipping Act or the Bill. I suggest that in Committee we might well look at the Clause about privacy, because that could well enshrine some of the problems we face, where there is total lack of privacy at sea.
We also heard a great deal from the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) about the problems of the Royal Navy. I strongly disagree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, and certainly with what he said about what the officer of the watch will tell his men. I think that that would be a very minority viewpoint.
I was a member of the Select Committee which considered the Armed Forces Bill, and we examined the question of homosexuality as it applies to the Forces. The Committee's unanimous recommendation was that it should remain subject to the Naval Discipline Act and the Acts affecting the other Services. It was put to us forcibly that if this Bill became applicable to the Services it would undermine discipline. That is what we are arguing about, the effect on discipline in the Services and among

Merchant Seamen at sea. I am certain that the problem could be met in Committee.
But there is a far greater problem about the Bill to which I do not think enough attention has been given. It was said in the Wolfenden Report, which most of us feel to be one of the best Reports ever to come out on this subject, that, the decisive argument which made the Wolfenden Committee take the stand it did was:
… the importance which society and the law ought to give to individual freedom of choice and action in matters of private morality.
The quotation goes on:
Unless a deliberate attempt is to be made by society, acting through the agency of the law to equate the sphere of crime with that of sin, there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and crude terms, not the law's business. To say this is not to condone or to encourage private immorality".
This, to me, is the nub of the problem, which this Bill tackles, and tackles most courageously. These people, suffering from what I would prefer to call a symptom of homosexuality, already suffer very deeply from social ostracism. They are to a great extent alone in the world. But, because of the present law, a law which the hon. Member for Ilford, North himself dislikes, they live in perpetual fear. Much has been made of the possibility of blackmail, and this is very important, but it is not the only fear. The real fear these people have is fear of prosecution. They know that they can be prosecuted. These are people who often, for other reasons, are mentally unstable in that they are anxious and nervous, and the threat of prosecution is very real.
I do not wish to talk as a doctor because I know that my own profession is divided, though I should say that the vast majority support the Bill—certainly, the vast majority of psychiatrists support it—but I cannot but put before the House some of the feelings which I have had in working in a professional capacity, particularly when I have been called to a big London casualty department to see an attempted suicide case. One sees a man coming round after an attempted suicide. To face life again is very difficult in any circumstances. A person has made the decision to take his life, he


finds it has been unsuccessful, and then follows the whole process of bitter and harsh readjustment. But so often the man is a homosexual, and he faces a doubly difficult readjustment. He faces the readjustment just to life and he faces the problem of readjusting again to the trouble which has so often driven him to thoughts of suicide.
This debate has been remarkably unlike some of the debates we have had on the subject in that we have not today talked about what is irrelevant to the Bill. All of us condemn the homosexual who goes about importuning and soliciting, particularly the young, and we all condemn the fact that many homosexuals contract venereal diseases. But we are today concentrating on the real issue. We are thinking of the men who live a haunted existence, who are asking through this Bill only for the right to live within the privacy of their own houses as they wish to live. They are asking of this House only that they be allowed not to affect the morals of society, not to live flagrantly or openly, but to live in their private life as this sexual drive dictates to them to do.
Those of us who have seen these people know how tortured they are. They come from all walks of life. We are not talking of the stage picture of the "queer", the "nancy boy". Often, these people go through life with those in closest contact with them not having the slightest knowledge that they live this tortured existence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Anne Kerr) told us of the difficulties for them when they are forced by society's pressures to marry. These can be very severe, too. But so often they live in loneliness and fear. We cannot stop their loneliness. Society, I submit, will always condemn homosexual practice, and it would not be my wish that the House should be seen to condone it. But I ask the House to vote to remove the fear from those men who so order their lives that they do not inflict themselves and their ailment on society, and to allow them in the privacy of their own homes to pursue their lives as they are driven to do.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I hope that tonight we can get rid of this issue once and for all and that 19th

December will mark the stage when the Bill got a Second Reading. I think that in the 10 years that I have been in the House I have voted four or five times on this issue, going back to the occasion when the right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson), the Minister of Health, brought forward a Motion at the time of the Wolfenden Report, which was nearly passed on that occasion. I noted last time the House had a vote on this issue that the figures were almost exactly the same as those that were produced by the Gallup Poll of the public at the same time. So the House seemed to be in tune with the public.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on having the courage to bring the Bill forward on this occasion. I have only two or three things to say. When I was a young man I learnt something about the law. One of the things I learnt was that there were two circles, the circle of law and the circle of morality. They intersected to a certain extent but not by any means the whole extent. There was a large field which was covered only by morality and not by law.
To give an example, in the Ten Commandments we are told "Honour thy father and thy mother", but there is no legal sanction behind that. There is the Seventh Commandment, which is not written into the criminal law. In the New Testament one has such phrases such as, "Love thy enemies". Again, that is not written into the law of the land. So there is a large circle in which there is no force of the criminal law.
Therefore, I think that if we were legislating afresh on this matter today without anything that happened through Labouchére, we would surely, the feeling of the country being as it is, say that homosexuality between adults in private was a private matter and not one for the criminal law. Secondly, obviously one was taught—and it is obviously true, and has been hammered today—that a law must be enforceable. One knows from the hundreds of thousands of cases in the country at the present time that, frankly, this law is not enforceable.
Thirdly, one must show that the basis of the criminal law must be that it effects a public mischief and effects public order and decency. The way in which the Bill


has been framed is such that it keeps the public part of it a criminal offence without bringing the private part into that part of the criminal law. It seems to me that there are plenty of safeguards in the Bill for everyone who has fears about it—safeguards regarding young people, safeguards regarding public places, safeguards with regard to living on immoral earnings and so on. There are plenty of safeguards for public decency and public order.
I thought that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) made a point that should be properly answered. He said that the social castigation of homosexuality is so great that even if we were to take away the criminal part of it blackmail would still go on. I do not believe that to be true. I think that blackmail is essentially tied up with the fact that, at the moment, this is a criminal offence and that a man can be told by his partner that if he does not look out the blackmailer will go straight to the police and get him brought before the courts. I should have thought that this was at least three quarters of the basis of the blackmailing cases at the present time, the fear not so much of the social consequences, which of course are there, but of the consequences that might affect a man by his being taken to court. I should have thought that that was very genuine.
So, in short, I would hope that tonight we should be able to make a decision which would clear out of our way a problem that has been plaguing the House for 10 years. It is over time that it was solved.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made a very reasonable contribution, and did it in a very short time. I shall try to follow his example. I hope he will excuse me if at 9.20 p.m. I do not go into details even about the parts of his speech with which I did not agree.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) suggested that there was some reason why the Government had given Government time for the Bill. It may be that there are very good reasons why the Government have given time for

it. It has been suggested that there is police pressure behind the move so that the law will be determined once and for all. It might be useful to have an indication of the Government's attitude in making this time available to the House.
We have to decide whether the Bill will do more harm or more good than the law as it stands. I think that it will be a better law than the present law. On that basis, I gave my approval, limited as it was, to the introduction of the Bill and I now intend to support the Second Reading.
There are, however, one or two points I wish to put and I hope some answer can be given by the Government. Clause l says that a homosexual offence in private
… shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto …
I am somewhat doubtful about the word "consent" being on its own. There may be some need for clarification so that it does not become a matter of consent under duress but remains consent freely given. However, this is a point to be considered in Committee.
Clause 1(5) deals with the exclusion of the Armed Forces from the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) referred to the Navy. He should be reminded that the history of the Navy suggests that, for hundreds of years, from Raleigh to Nelson, seamen have been homosexual at sea and heterosexual on shore. I do not know the appropriate word for that. Perhaps it is "opportunist". But no one suggests that, because they had this adaptability in the past, our seamen were any the less men, or a less effective fighting force or that they undermined discipline. I do not say that the Navy of today is the same as it was in other days but this aspect should be kept under consideration.

Captain W. Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House, in that case, why the Bill will not cover the Navy or the other fighting forces?

Mr. Ogden: This is the only part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech with which I would agree. for I feel that there is still room for argument as to whether the Armed Forces or Merchant Navy would be better or worse off by


inclusion or exclusion from the Bill. I have not heard a great deal of argument on this apart from the N.U.S. If the Bill is to provide safeguards for young men who may be influenced in the wrong direction, we might be doing a disservice by excluding the Armed Forces and the Merchant Navy. However, this can be argued to a greater degree in Committee.
The Amendment was put forward reasonably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), but at the same time that he received the letter he quoted from the N.U.S., on 16th November, other hon. Members, on both sides of the House and from all parts of the country, also received a letter from Mr. Hogarth suggesting that he and his members had some interest and concern. He asked for our support. I replied saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was a Labour M.P., was reasonably approachable and spoke to one as one went past. I suggested that there was no reason why he should not be asked what he thought of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak up a little. It is difficult to hear.

Mr. Ogden: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out that, in my reply to Mr. Hogarth, I suggested that it might be practically useful to have a word with the sponsors of the Bill before anything was done. Mr. Hogarth wrote back to me that he was arranging a meeting with the sponsors to discuss the matter and that afterwards he would come back to individual Members if he thought their support was necessary. These meetings have taken place and there has been some discussion, but so far I have not been asked by the N.U.S. to support any Amendment.
While awaiting this proposal from the N.U.S., my colleagues from Liverpool and Merseyside put down an Amendment in substantially the same terms as those suggested in the original N.U.S. letter. No one would deny that hon. Members from that part of the world have great experience and knowledge of ships and shipping, but I, too, am a Merseyside Member of Parliament. Merseyside Members on both sides of the House often work closely together, but on this

occasion I was not asked to sponsor the Amendment, neither as a Merseyside Member of Parliament, nor as one of the only two ex-Merchant Navy Members. I would have thought that time was not particularly pressing and that it did not very much matter whether the Amendment was put down on the Friday, the Monday or the Tuesday, but it might have been useful to have had a sponsor who not only came from a seaport, but who had had some service in the Merchant Navy, admittedly limited war-time, emergency-only service, but at least some.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Was there anything to stop my hon. Friend from signing the Amendment? Several hon. Members from Scotland signed it.

Mr. Ogden: I am discussing the way in which it was put down. If one seeks support for a proposition of this kind, surely it is useful to have one's own colleagues supporting it, especially if they have had some service in the Merchant Navy.
As the debate has gone on, I have been tempted to the conclusion that this is a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Nonsense.

Mr. Ogden: I am drawing my own conclusions. My hon. Friends are entitled to disagree. If the seamen's union wants us to take this action, let us take it in conjunction with the union. Let the union tell us what it wants and let us work together. That has not happened.
In view of the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool that he will go as far as he possibly can to meet the objections of the seamen's union, I find his proposal acceptable and on that understanding I will give my support to the Second Reading. However, if the Bill is not amended to the satisfaction of the union and every seaman involved, when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, I will oppose it, but I do not see why we should reject the good in the Bill for the sake of this issue.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friends who have great knowledge of the Merchant Navy, but I have some knowledge of it, too. I have tried to support the proposal of the N.U.S. and I have had conversations with my hon. Friend


the hon. Member for Pontypool and I am convinced that he intends that the Merchant Navy shall have the support for which Mr. Hogarth has asked. What more can I ask? On the perfectly clear understanding that the Committee will amend the Bill so that it has the safeguards which my hon. Friends and ex-colleagues in the Merchant Navy want, the Bill will have my support. If not, it will have my opposition.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on the manner in which he has introduced the Bill. He made a speech which was not only full of humanity and compassion, of which there is no shortage on either side of the House, but which was full of that much rarer quality—common sense.
I recall the speech of the distinguished previous sponsor of the Bill, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, whose integrity and pungency were such an asset to the House. Few people are missed in this House, but the former Member for Lancaster is missed. As it is at least arguable that his defeat a t the General Election was caused in part by his courageous sponsorship of the Bill, I hope that tonight his pioneer work will be not only remembered, but vindicated in the Lobbies.
I want to reply to a number of points which have been raised during the debate. First of all I should like to refer to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). One always listens to everything that he says with the greatest respect and I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) who said that this was a wrecking Amendment. If the hon. Member for Bootle wished to wreck this Bill, he would do it by a frontal assault, because he is not the sort of man to revert to subterfuges of any kind. I would ask him to withdraw the Amendment because his point has been accepted in substance by the sponsor of the Bill.
I hope that he will be reassured on this very genuine point which he has raised. In passing I would also be rash enough to venture into this private vendetta between himself and the Tribune, which apparently called him a reactionary. He would

have had much greater cause for complaint if he had been called a progressive by that newspaper.
I now wish to turn to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), because there was some confusion as a result of his speech about the legal position before 1885. In 1885 gross indecency of any kind between men, either in private or in public was made a criminal offence. Before that the Statute law of England had a punishment for a limited form of homosexuality, namely, buggery or sodomy, which had been introduced by Statute of Henry VIII in 1533. That Statute was repealed by Queen Mary, reenacted again by Queen Elizabeth and carried the death penalty for this offence. It was not until 1861 that this was commuted to a term of imprisonment.
This historical point has some relevance and validity today, because one of the points of this Bill is that it is going back to a tradition before the Henrician Statute of 1533, when this sort of offence was dealt with not by the criminal law but by the ecclesiastical courts. They dealt with it not as a crime but as a sin and so there is an older tradition of English jurisdiction which is vindicated by this Bill. I want to turn briefly to an important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford. North (Mr. Iremonger) who spoke about the effect of public opinion and the thoughts of the public in general upon this Bill. He said that the country was against it.
Clearly, he is strongly against it, and if he will forgive me for saying so, I think that he has confused the strength of his own feelings with the strength of feeling outside the House. He said that he was against this Bill lock, stock and barrel; he added that he was against it root and branch. I suppose that in view of the nautical nature of the Amendment before the House he might have said that he was against it hook, line and sinker. But to say that the country shares those feelings is unintentionally misleading.
We do not know for certain the opinion of the country. Such evidence as there is is that there has been quite a profound change of opinion over the last few years about this Bill and the measures it proposes. The last piece of evidence was the poll carried out by National Opinion Poll in December, 1965, when it


showed that 63 per cent. of the people consulted in the poll were opposed to homosexual acts between consenting adults being criminal offences. I do not say for a moment that the result of opinion polls decides an issue, least of all in this House, but the poll is a piece of evidence of some value, and we can say that there has been a change in public opinion on this issue.
The second source of evidence is our own post bags. My own experience is that the only correspondence that I have had on this Bill is from people asking me to support it. I now wish to deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) who said that the Bill would create a condition in which those who sit in judgment on others might have committed the same offence themselves. That is a situation which happens in every branch of our public life. If one had to be impeccable before one was elected to this House then there would be no Members. The idea that sinfulness disqualifies one from sitting in judgment on others or from public office is an argument not put forward since the Hussite rebellion in Bohemia 500 years ago.
I wish to address myself to the moral issue which lies at the heart of this debate. There are those who fear that the Bill will weaken morality. I understand that fear, although I do not share it. It is the present law which is weakening respect for morality, for a number of reasons. First, it constitutes a quite unwarrantable invasion of privacy. It is a fundamental principle of our law that sexual behaviour which does not violate the rights of other people and does not outrage public order and decency should not be subject to the criminal law. That is, presumably, why we do not punish fornication or adultery, although we do not approve of them. There is no valid distinction in this context between different forms of sexual behaviour. It is true that we may feel an emotional repugnance to homosexuality which is not felt in relation to other sexual activities, but that is not a firm basis on which to found the law. If emotions are strongly aroused by any subject, we should be on our guard to control them as much as possible by reasoned and rational argument.
The second reason for reform is that the present law is fundamentally inequitable. First, it punishes those whom we know are not fully responsible for their actions and not at all responsible for their condition; and secondly, it operates capriciously and by chance. It can be made effectively and universally enforceable only at the price of a police state, of a degree of supervision of private life which this country, even in its most puritanical periods, has never been prepared to accept. Thirdly, the law does nothing for morality because it imposes an impossibly high standard. Of course, celibacy is a high ideal, but few are capable of achieving it, except perhaps the totally religiously dedicated.
It is quite unreasonable to expect those who, through no fault of their own, are attracted exclusively to members of their own sex to live a life of celibate abstention. It simply cannot be done. One must accept that fact. Furthermore, the present law drives the whole issue completely underground. By its blanket condemnation of all forms of homosexuality, and by making no distinction between one action and another, it creates a homosexual underworld in which it is extremely difficult to maintain any acceptable standards.
There are strong arguments in favour of the Bill on the ground that in fact it would promote public morality. By limiting itself to practical objectives, the law would provide homosexuals with standards of behaviour which there was some prospect of their keeping. By condemning and punishing effectively, as the Bill does, the corruption of minors, the exploitation of the weak, and those who abuse their positions of trust, far from weakening public morality, the Bill would strengthen it.
There are those who oppose this change in the law because they fear that it would give approval to homosexuality. We have heard that argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North. But, of course, it does nothing of the kind. One has to repeat yet again that what the Bill says is that criminal sanctions are inappropriate for this branch of human activity. It says no more and no less than that. If the Bill were passed, homosexuality would remain unlawful, although not criminal. The Bill would


create no recognised status of homosexuality. It would remain contrary to public policy. Homosexual relations would give rise neither to rights nor to duties.
I want now to deal specifically with the position of Christian morality on this issue. We are a Christian country and, therefore, it is right to pay attention to the almost unanimous view of the leaders of the churches on the Bill. The Church of England, which has been referred to, the Advisory Committee of the Roman Catholic Church and the Representative Committee of the Free Churches have all come out in favour of the Bill. I am not saying that the churches should have a final view on this issue—certainly not. It is the consciences of individual Members which will decide this issue and, thank heaven, we are tonight being allowed a free vote. I do not regret that the Government have not made this a matter of policy. The evidence of the leaders of Christian opinion in this country should, however, be persuasive, particularly to those who have moral doubts about this matter.
There are three further points which I would like to bring to the attention of the House in favour of a change in the law. First, there is the danger that homosexuality is becoming a public obsession. The constant discussion of the subject in this House and outside it is, I believe, morbid and harmful. One of the most powerful arguments for the Bill is that it would finally remove the whole issue from the sphere of the public domain to that of private minority interests, where it belongs. The temperature of this debate has fortunately been low, but that is partly because this subject, I regret to say, has become a bore, and the arguments for and against this Measure are by now extremely threadbare.
My second point is that we are faced at this time with a crime wave of unparalleled gravity and it is essential that we should have a united public opinion in support of the criminal law. We cannot have that while offences such as this remain on the Statute Book. Today, the police should not be concerned with these peripheral moral issues but with the apprehension of the professional criminal.
There is one point connected with the Bill although not directly raised by it

which I would like to put before the Home Secretary. I hope that he can assure the House that the detestable practice of policemen acting as agents provocateurs in public lavatories and other places has been discontinued in those areas where the Home Secretary has responsibility for the administration of the police.
My third argument for altering the law is that until we repeal this law, we cannot start tackling the problem at the level at which it should be tackled, which is on the psychological plane, the sociological plane and the spiritual plane. Until we get away from a legal solution which merely drives homosexuals into a ghetto and leaves them there, we cannot begin to approach this problem intelligently and constructively.
I have tried to show that there is no inconsistency between concern with public morality, which I certainly have, and support for the Bill, but there is a wider consideration, which has certainly influenced me, that the effect of the existing law is undoubtedly to increase human suffering. There is, I suppose, hardly a Member of this House who has not a friend or acquaintance, or even, perhaps, a member of his or her family, who has had useful lives destroyed by the capricious incidence of this unjust law. It is because the Bill, in a minor fashion admittedly, but in a real one, reduces the incidence of avoidable human suffering that I shall vote for it tonight.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: In the opinion of the Members of Parliament who have signed the Amendment, there has been a lamentable lack of imagination in excluding the Merchant Navy from the safeguard given to the Army and the Royal Air Force.
An old saying and a true one, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) has given voice earlier this evening, is that there are no back doors in the Navy. It is a well-known truism that seamen invariably are quiet men, but in the face of unnatural conduct and bad example they are tough indeed. Whether or not we care to admit it, the presence of known homosexuals gives cause for anxiety, particularly at sea. The Merchant Navy and the seamen'


union in particular are viewing the passing of this legislation with the deepest possible anxiety. The seamen's union will not accept responsibility for the outcome of the Bill as it now stands; and who better to comprehend its pitfalls? As we know, strikes are detrimental to the wellbeing of the country. It would be salutary if future strikes were caused not because of bad social or industrial conditions but because of the moral turpitude of individual seagoers.
In my opinion, the seamen's union is being statesmanlike in its forebodings. Seamen cannot always be relied upon to furnish academic reasons for walking off a ship. Understandably, the seamen's union is anxious, and it would be dangerous in the extreme to ignore its forebodings in this regard. The effect on recruitment could be quite catastrophic. Whether we like it or not, good parents invariably will take an interest in their children's careers and have a voice in their future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) knows a great deal about this subject; that is unmistakable. He asks plaintively what can be done to avoid faulty males. With my limited knowledge, I am afraid that I cannot be relied upon to give an answer to that question, but certainly it is not by taking the least line of resistance. One would imagine that the Ten Commandments did not exist, and I was surprised at his splendid eloquence in this mistaken cause.
In this context, the plea for compassion can also be exageerated. It is because of the dangers of blackmail and violence which my hon. Friend enumerated that the seamen's union holds up its hands in horror at the prospect of the legislation as outlined. With the greatest possible concern, Members of Parliament must ask themselves how far the floodgates should be opened and for how long we can continue to condone wrong doing because of the frailty of human nature. The same compassion can be urged for the kleptomaniac or any other wrongdoer in any capacity. I reiterate, how far should the floodgates be opened?
The call is for compassion, but not by any means for the sponsors of the Amendment. We are reactionaries.
My hon. Friend laid great stress on human relations. Not with the widest stretch of imagination can it be said that Parliament has debated the issue today with any degree of morbidity, nor has there been a desire to whittle down the size of the problem. I believe that the House will be inclined to differ from my hon. Friend profoundly when he depicts the situation as being one of celibacy or criminality, with nothing in between. There is a great deal in between. There is chastity, prudence and manliness in the real sense of the word. His comparison between different chief constables was to my way of thinking rather odious and uncharitable. God knows that their responsibilities are heavy indeed.
The Amendment has been tabled because this is a bad Bill, bad because of what it contains, worse because of what it omits. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) expressed the pious hope that it would not be felt that Members of this House favoured homosexuality. However charitably inclined some Members are to accept this point of view, I am afraid that there will be a great deal of dubiety about it among people outside.
The Bill as it stands will be prejudicial to the high standards in the Merchant Navy. If this were not so the seamen's union would not be so up in arms against it.
One hon. Gentleman opposite was not impressed with the intellectual content of the case for the Amendment. One can only say that what is intellectually splendid is very seldom morally right, and because of its morality the supporters of the Amendment are determined to divide the House.

9.52 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: May I express my apologies to the House, and particularly to the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), for not having been here when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish that I had been, and I hope that the House and the hon. Member will accept my apologies.
When moving a similar Bill in the last Parliament, Mr. Humphry Berkeley said how much he would like to be able to say that he was the father of six children. I can say that, and, as the


father of six children, I can also say that I am a sponsor of the Bill.
I spoke during the first debate on the Wolfenden proposals. That was eight or more years ago. I spoke then just having had some experience in the courts of appearing for a distinguished person who had been charged with these offences. I thought at the time what a terrible waste of a human being it was to have the processes of the law inflicted on him, and yet at the time of the Wolfenden proposals and the Wolfenden debate I thought that this offence was a matter of an abuse of a natural function, and that therefore the criminal law could and should pronounce that this was wrong.
That was my view then, but even then I felt that it was wholly wrong that people should be sent to prison for this reason. When I was a Law Officer, and when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir. G. Hobson) was the senior law officer, some changes were made in the practice. I am glad that they came about, because what offended me and many people of ordinary compassion was bringing forward, as l am sure the hon. Member for Pontypool and others have said, of stale offences. That seemed to be a wholly outrageous and barbarous form of proceedings, apart from the blackmail which could and did arise, and sometimes the wrong persons were proceeded against when there had been a threat of blackmail.
But over the years, I have come to believe that the law does not work. Unlike the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon), I like reactionaries. I think that they are much more enchanting, and sometimes much more intelligent, than so-called progressives, but in this matter it is my view that the law does not work. I do not resile from or abandon my distaste for this conduct. I do not abandon that belief. One of the things that I dislike is the possible proselytising which may follow a change in the law. Nevertheless, over the years I have decided that the law should be changed.
I have seen so much of the effects of this in the courts. The hon. Member for Preston, South mentioned manliness. I must point out to him that it is often the outwardly manly person who suffers most from this disease. The law creates inequities. There are tragedies. I do not

believe that the criminal law should go on pursuing these people. That is why I have sponsored the Bill. Very rarely does the hon. Member for Pontypool see eye to eye with me. Often we have faced each other across the Table in debate. I do not believe that the Bill will change the world, or that it will change the people with whom we are concerned, but it is right, and it is about time that we changed the law.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) pointed out that no intellectual case was being put. It is late in the debate to put forward sufficient material which may convince hon. Members that there is such a case that they may wish to consider.
From this debate and the previous one it is clear that there is a lack of information on the subject. Theories have been put forward as to whether homosexuality is a disease, a weakness or a vice. There is no consistent view. Similarly, we are not even sure of the exact figures for this country. We do not know how many men are afflicted in this way. In the debate in another place Lord Arran put the figure between 500,000 and one million, and other figures have been given tonight. There is great uncertainty on the subject, running throughout our whole discussion, and that uncertainty makes it difficult to attempt any real understanding of a possible cure, or of a prevention of the problem.
We are not even sure whether homosexuals are born or made. Lord Arran argued that they are born, but a distinguished doctor, Dr. West, said that this condition was the result of environment. It is vital to remove the criminal stigma if we are to obtain co-operation in research. It is legitimate to expect something worth while in terms of a possible cure or a prevention of the problem if we can channel the information—information which we do not have at the moment—but until we remove the criminal stigma it will not be possible to engage in worthwhile research.
The second reason why I support the Bill is the pace of social change which has taken place in the last 25 years and


which has caused a widening gap between the generations. The views put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North are those of a generation which has not taken account of this enormous social change. Those who argue that change is undesirable and will bring even greater problems are not attempting to face the underlying problems of the moment.
The other feature of the subject which was well brought out in a first-class speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was that there is an important rôle to be played by the family. Here again we are up against an enormous difficulty—

Mr. James Dance: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that Motion at the moment.

Mr. Moonman: The important point that came out of my hon. Friend's speech

was that the family has an important rôle to play. My hon. Friend stressed the value of the father who was approachable—the father who understood the difficulties and who was able to engage in a really creative understanding with his children. Another hon. Member felt that there was not enough sensible sex education in schools and that this was a way of dealing with the problem. The difficulties of social change are reflected in the example of a London social worker, who was asked to inquire about—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 84.

Division No. 229.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Ensor, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Judd, Frank


Alldritt, Walter
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Allen, Scholefield
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lomas, Kenneth


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Longden, Gilbert


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Loughlin, Charles


Body, Richard
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Luard, Evan


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lubbock, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Freeson, Reginald
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McBride, Neil


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John


Brooks, Edwin
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Brown, R. W. (Shorediteh &amp; F'bury)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchan, Norman
Gresham Cooke, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Carlisle, Mark
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Maddan, Martin


Carmichael, Neil
Grieve, Percy
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Channon, H. P. G.
Grimond, Rt Hn. J.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Chapman, Donald
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Manuel, Archie


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
Marquand, David


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Haseldine, Norman
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dalyell, Tam
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moonman, Eric


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dell, Edmund
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Moyle, Roland


Dewar, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Newens, Stan


Dickens, James
Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Dobson, Ray
Hoy, James
Noe1-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)


Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Driberg, Tom
Hunt, John
Ogden, Eric


Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John
O'Malley, Brian


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oram, Albert E.


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Orbach, Maurice


Ellis, John
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Orme, Stanley


English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)




Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Roebuck, Roy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Paget, R. T.
Rose, Paul
Varley, Eric G.


Palmer, Arthur
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Royle, Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Pardoe, John
Ryan, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Sheldon, Robert
Weitzman, David


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'stle-u-Tyne)
Whitaker, Ben


Pavitt, Laurence
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Probert, Arthur
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Small, William
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Redhead, Edward
Smith, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Rees, Merlyn
Snow, Julian
Woof, Robert


Reynolds, G. W.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Yates, Victor


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Swingler, Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas and


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Teeling, Sir William
Dr. David Kerr.




NOES


Baker, W. H. K.
Hannan, William
Peel, John


Baxter, William
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hawkins, Paul
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hill, J. E. B.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Binns, John
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Black, Sir Cyril
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Blackburn, F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Braine, Bernard
Kenyon, Clifford
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kimball, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Burden, F. A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tomney, Frank


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Urwin, T. W.


Eadie, Alex
MacArthur, Ian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mapp, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gibson-Watt, David
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael



Gurden, Harold
Norwood, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Ray Mawby and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. James Dance.

Orders of the Day — SEXUAL OFFENCES (No. 2) BILL

Question again proposed.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Moonman: I suppose that elsewhere that Division would be regarded as a natural break in my speech. I should like to keep my remarks extremely brief, because I recognise, Mr. Speaker, that the voting suggests that you may wish to consider the Closure of this debate.
I was stating the difficulty of explaining in a creative sense in education these social problems—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has just voted that the debate should continue.

Mr. Moonman: The example I want to give concerns a London social worker who was asked to inquire about the bruises on a 13 year old boy's back who was told by the mother, "I asked his father to take the belt buckle to him. I cannot have him being dirty." The boy had merely repeated a word from an eminent text book that he had read in a biology lesson at school. We have this enormous gap in the generations arising from the pace of social change. Those who would question the correctness of our educational system ought to consider this point.
I support the Bill because it seems to me that law reform on homosexuality is needed, which is not the same thing as saying that we approve of homosexual


practices. Those who have opposed the Bill have often given this as their reason. It has been suggested that its adoption would mean an undisciplined sex life. In fact, the movers of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, have only suggested that there can be discipline by reason instead of by fear. Suggestions that "intellectual longhairs" are supporters of the Bill are not borne out by the number of people with whom I have worked in a university settlement some years ago and who have looked after men who were afflicted in this way. Indeed, many of these people were extremely devoted to their work and they covered a great cross-section of the social services.
There has been a fair amount of special pleading on behalf of the Merchant Navy, and I think it is appropriate that I should participate in this debate as a Merseysider. The argument that has been put on these grounds could well be the basic argument against the Bill as a whole. I feel that those who have put this case—I respect their experience of the sea and of shipping—have not sufficiently distinguished between their Amendment and the Bill as a whole. Arguments that this sort of legislation will affect the parents of boys going to sea, that it will affect recruitment, that it will cause greater problems on the catering side and will affect youth as a whole are arguments which would destroy the whole of the Bill. While I am all in favour of special pleading for Merseyside, I am not in favour of special pleading on behalf of the Merchant Navy. I am a life member of the Old Kings Comrades Association. I have noticed that there has not been special pleading for the other Services.
If the treatment and ultimate prevention of homosexuality is to be found in better social adjustment, we should not delay the passage of this Bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, in your deliberations, to consider the vote that was taken a few moments ago.

10.14 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: If I understand the position correctly, we have recently voted to continue our debate upon the Bill for a further two hours. If I further understand the situation correctly, we are now discussing whether the Bill should be

given a Second Reading, and it is upon that point that I want to address the House.
We have recently had a number of Bills which have been urged upon the House as being worthy of Second Reading and which have come forward as Private Members' Bills. But somehow or other the present Government seem to find particular satisfaction in providing extraordinary facilities for Bills which are supposed to be Private Members' Bills. I remember a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) which was alleged to be a Private Member's Bill—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It was a Private Member's Bill.

Sir S. McAdden: —as a result of which Parliamentary procedure was so altered that for the first time in my 17 years' experience in the House we met on Wednesday mornings to consider the Report stage. If that is to be the proper treatment of a Private Member's Bill it arouses grave worries and doubts in my mind, as also in the case of this Bill.
This Bill, which is alleged to be a Private Member's Bill, nevertheless has the support of Her Majesty's Government to such an extent that they are able to provide extraordinary privileges for it which they do not normally extend to a Private Member's Bill. Why on earth do the Government not have the guts to say that they favour the abolition of capital punishment, as in the case of the Bill of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and, in the case of this Bill presented by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), that they favour the principles he has expounded?
Why on earth do they want the camouflage of pretending that it is a Private Member's Bill when they know perfectly well that it has the Government's wholehearted support? The Division records will show that the members of the party opposite, with one or two exceptions—brave souls they may be expelled from the Labour Party next week—but with the exception of one or two—[An Hort. MEMBER: "Shame."]—the hon. Gentleman says that it may be a shame that they should be expelled from the Labour Party.

Mr. John Pardoe: Disgraceful.

Sir S. McAdden: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said that it is disgraceful. If he thinks that it is disgraceful that they should be expelled from the Labour Party that is a matter for him. I am saying that the Division records will show that be it a free vote or not the overwhelming majority of the party opposite and the overwhelming majority of the Liberal Party—the one Member of the Liberal Party—behind me will vote for this Measure.

Dr. David Kerr: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he concede that whatever the Government's corporate view—I am in no position to speak for them—they have a responsibility to pay some heed to two votes in the other place and one vote here, every one of which has recorded the overwhelming support of Parliament for this Measure?

Sir S. McAdden: I do not dissent from what is said by the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), whom I regard an hon. Friend of mine. I do not dissent in any way from his views. But if it is right that the Government should take cognisance of the views expressed by votes in the other place and in this House, and should also take account of public opinion expressed in the only way available to us, through the public opinion polls then if the Government took cognisance of the public opinion polls they would never have given the facilities to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and the hon. Member for Pontypool.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Sir S. McAdden: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, whose contemptuous arrogance towards other Members of the House is well known.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House, when an hon. Member is referred to several times, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) has been, for the hon. Member making the references to give way?

Mr. Speaker: Whether an hon. Member gives way is in the discretion of the hon. Member himself.

Sir S. McAdden: I am always willing to give way, as hon. Members opposite will agree, and most hon. Members are ready to give way to others, but I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, who displays such contemptuous arrogance towards other Members of the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Member is telling lies.

Sir S. McAdden: I have no intention of giving way to the hon. Member, who keeps on interrupting and who now says that I am telling lies. I should think that that is completely unparliamentary language, but, if the hon. Member wants to indulge in it, that is for him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a very good debate so far. I hope that the hon. Member will get back to the Second Reading of the Bill.

Sir S. McAdden: I am most anxious to get back to the Second Reading and not to provoke any undue conflagration. I have told you before, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to accept, that I hope that I shall never throughout my Parliamentary life incur your displeasure, and I seek not to do so tonight. I am most anxious that the House should be clear on what is happening in the name of Parliamentary democracy. We have before us what is alleged to be a Private Member's Bill, but it is a Bill to which quite extraordinary privileges have been accorded. It is being given a Second Reading debate, which should normally finish at 10 o'clock but we have suspended our rule so that the debate shall run until midnight. This is a procedure which is not normal—

Sir Myer Galpern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we discussing whether the Bill is or is not supported by the Government, or are we discussing whether the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill should be given a Second Reading? I have heard no reference to the Bill so far in what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to decide what is in order.

Sir S. McAdden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I trust that, if I ever do stray


out of order, I shall readily accept your reprimand, although I shall regret it for the rest of my days.
In considering this Measure, we ought also to consider the circumstances in which it is being put before the House. Ostensibly, it is a Private Member's Bill, as other Bills have been ostensibly Private Members' Bills. I would much rather the Government had taken their courage in their hands and said, "We wholeheartedly support this Bill and we shall, therefore, provide extraordinary facilities so that it may have a Second Reading". If they had done that with the Bill to abolish capital punishment and if they had done it in this case, I should have said that at least they were men of vision, they were ambitious men prepared to take their courage in their hands. But I have no respect whatever for people who skulk on the Government Front Bench, unable to come forward openly and say that this is a Measure which they support, but hoping that private Members will be able to sneak Measures through the House, as they are seeking to do now.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back a few years? Did not a former Conservative Administration find time for the Private Member's Bill on homicide introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman)? Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Conservative Administration then was wrong?

Sir S. McAdden: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman drawing my attention to the weaknesses of a previous Conservative Administration which provided facilities which he thinks ought not to have been given. That is no justification for what the present Government are

doing. Unfortunately, we are saddled with this Government for some years. As we are saddled with them, it is right that, from time to time, hon. Members on this side should draw attention to the fact that they espouse Bills which they have not the courage to support as a Government but for which they are ready, willing and able to provide special facilities.
Had the Home Secretary, for whom I have very great regard, believing that he is a very respectable chap, come forward openly and said, "This is a Bill which the Government think ought to have a Second Reading", I should still have voted against the Bill, but I should have appreciated that he had been honest enough openly to espouse the Bill. To allow it to sneak through under the guise of a Private Member's Bill ought to be resented by the House.
I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I might as well state my position frankly. What I am concerned with is the transformation of Parliamentary procedure to pass into law proposals which are enunciated by the hon. Member for Pontypool and afforded full Parliamentary privilege not provided even for Government Bills, and the pretence that this is a Private Member's Bill.
For these reasons, I hope that the House will reject the Bill and send it back so that it may be introduced as a Government Bill. If a Government Bill is introduced, then we shall at least know that this is a Measure openly proposed by the Government and backed by the Government, a Bill on which they will go to the electors and say, "We as a political party are in favour of this Measure". If the Government are prepared to say that, then let them introduce the Measure. We shall vote against it just the same.

10.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I think that immediately following that somewhat extraordinary effusion it might be a particularly appropriate moment and for the convenience of the House if I were to try to explain briefly the Government's attitude to the Bill.
I thought that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) took a very surprising line in his speech. As I understood it, it was that if hon. Members were left free to vote unwhipped according to their conscience, this was sneaking a Bill through the House. I have certainly always taken the view that in many circumstances our traditional system of party whipping is necessary and desirable, but where the House of Commons can give its untrammelled attention to Bills of this sort, to describe such a procedure as sneaking Bills through the House seems to be a misuse of language almost beyond the bounds of imagination.

Sir S. McAdden: I was suggesting that to provide extraordinary facilities for the Bill was objectionable.

Mr. Jenkins: I will deal with that in two ways. First, although the hon. Member says that he is not interested in parallels, perhaps I may remind the House that the facilities being given to the Bill by the Government are almost exactly the same as those which were given to the Obscene Publications Bill, which I promoted in 1959, by the Government of the day and by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.
Secondly, perhaps I may explain certain special circumstances regarding this Bill. When I spoke on the debate on Mr. Humphry Berkeley's Bill in February of the last Parliament, I said that the Government regarded that Measure, the same as this, as pre-eminently a subject for decision on a free vote of the House according to the individual consciences and views of hon. Members in all parts of the House. This is still the Government's view. There will be a free vote tonight, and that free vote will apply as much to members of the Government as to other hon. Members. However, should the House decide to give the Bill, as it did on a previous occasion, a Second Reading, we shall be ready to give such drafting

assistance as we can during its remaining stages—for example, in particular, on questions affecting the shipping industry, to which reference has been made tonight.
I am sure, from my acquaintance with my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), going back over a number of years, that he would not have put forward this proposal in the form he has done unless he really wished to be met on the point he had in mind. He would not have put it forward merely to wreck the Bill while pretending to do something else. I also believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has indicated that he is seized of this problem. I believe that it is certainly not beyond the wit of the sponsors of the Bill, with drafting assistance, to deal with this problem in Committee. This is what we should endeavour to do.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, inside the Government and outside, are entitled to vote against the Bill if they do not like it, but it would be wrong to pretend that the Bill should be voted against because of this problem—which I agree is a problem, but which I also believe can be dealt with in Committee.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend giving a categorical undertaking that the whole view of and opinion of the N.U.S. will be met in Committee?

Mr. Jenkins: No. It would be wrong for me to say that, in a Committee of this House or on the Floor of the House, without regard to any other considerations, the view of one body of men, however important and distinguished, should automatically prevail. What I am saying is that the point which has been made is valid. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool accepts it as valid and that, with good will, we can work out a solution to it in Committee.
There are some differences between this debate and that which we had on a previous occasion. The first is that Mr. Humphry Berkeley, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill in the last Parliament with such distinction and courage, is no longer here to do so on this occasion. I pay my tribute to the way he did it on that previous occasion. I should also like to say that I do not believe that the Bill could have been


better moved than it was today by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool.
The other difference is that, as the hon. Member for Southend, East pointed out several times, the debate is taking place in time provided by the Government. The fact that we have provided this time does not mean that the attitude collectively of the Government towards the Bill is other than one of neutrality. But we felt that, in a situation where this House had twice expressed, by decisive majorities, its approval of the principles embodied in the Bill, and where a similar Bill had twice been passed through all its stages by substantial majorities in another place, it was only right to give the House the opportunity to accept or reject the change in the law proposed.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that had this Bill not been brought forward as a Private Member's Bill, the Government certainly would not have introduced such a Bill themselves?

Mr. Jenkins: I am not answering a hypothetical question which does not arise. This Bill, as I have said, is eminently suitable for the Private Member's Bill procedure, which is a valuable part of the procedure of this House, and for free, cross-party voting. I believe it desirable, in the circumstances which have gone before, that the Government should make it possible for the House not merely to give an expression of opinion but, if it wishes, to carry the Bill through.
I believe that there is one special reason for this to which I shall now turn. Had we not taken this course, we should have found ourselves faced with the anomaly that the sanction of the criminal law continued to apply to acts which Parliament no longer considered to be criminal, and that solely because of the hazards of the Private Member's Bill procedure the law could not be changed. It would clearly have been an unsatisfactory position, in which the police authorities and the courts would have been required to go on applying a law which had twice been pronounced, by decisive majorities in both Houses, itself to be unsatisfactory.

Sir S. McAdden: rose—

Mr. Jenkins: I have given way enough. I would prefer to get on.
Such a situation would be clearly unsatisfactory and that in itself is a thoroughly adequate reason—and I make no apology, that apart—for the Government providing time. I doubt whether the great majority of right hon. and hon. Members are against the Government providing time for private Member's legislation and free decisions by the House. On that ground alone, it is highly desirable that we should have given an opportunity for the House's opinion to be expressed.
Having explained the Government's attitude, I would now like to explain my own, as I have done on a previous occasion. I say that I shall without hesitation support the Bill this evening and shall vote for it in the Division Lobby. I do not think that anyone would deny, not even the hon. Member for Southend, East and others who take his view, that over the nine years since the Wolfenden Committee reported there has been a steadily growing Parliamentary support for the view that homosexual acts between consenting adults in public should no longer be subject to the processes—[HON. MEMBERS: "In private."]—in private; let there be no doubt about this—that homosexual acts between consenting adults in private should no longer be subject to the penalties and processes of the criminal law.
We have had a fair number of debates since 1957. In the first, in November, 1958, there was no Division, but the then Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, spoke sympathetically in favour of a change, but said that time and the education of public opinion were necessary. Time has certainly gone by and I believe that to a large extent that education has taken place. In 1960, in a debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health and wound up by myself, the majority against us was the fairly decisive one of 114. As late as 1965 my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool failed by a very narrow majority to get leave to introduce a Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule.
As the House will recall, by February of this year the proposal to change the law had gained such increasing support that Mr. Berkeley's Bill was given a Second Reading by a majority of 57 and a few months ago my hon. Friend's Bill was given a First Reading by the much more decisive majority of 144.
We have, therefore, seen over the last decade a massive and decisive shift in Parliamentary feeling on this subject. I believe that this is evidence of a growing recognition that, whatever our views about particular forms of conduct, there has to be a very clear social purpose served before it is right to subject private conduct to the rigours of the criminal law.
There are a number of grounds for this view. First, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) pointed out in his very cogent speech, the present law is manifestly unsuccessful and capricious in its incidence. It certainly does not deal with homosexual behaviour, let alone stamp it out. Some of the opponents of the Bill argue—though I do not know on what statistical basis—that homosexuality is on the increase and that any relaxation of the law is dangerous because it would accelerate the increase. This is a fairly illogical argument. It amounts to saying that because the law has failed, it should be continued in force.
The truth of the matter is that in all societies throughout history there has been a certain amount of homosexual behavour and probably, I suspect, a fairly constant amount regardless of whether that behaviour has been condemned, as it sometimes has been, or condoned, as it sometimes has been, or even positively encouraged, as it sometimes has been. I doubt very much whether what the law has had to say about it has had any substantial effect upon its incidence.
There is certainly no evidence whatever that homosexuality has increased in those countries which have relaxed the law very much on the basis proposed by my hon. Friend, such as Sweden in 1944, or Austria in 1960.
Such evidence as there is goes the other way, and suggests that the existence of largely unenforceable legal provisions tend to bring the law into discredit and to invest the behaviour it seeks to prohibit with a spurious and most undesirable glamour and attraction. The present law certainly does not discourage homosexuality. I believe that homosexuality cannot be described as a disease in the sense that it can be cured; it is a disability and a very real disability for those who suffer it, which greatly minimises their chances of finding ordinary stable emotional relationships.
The question that we have to answer is whether on top of that disability, we should subject these people to the rigours of the criminal law. We would have to be very certain in our own minds that we were sustaining some clear social purpose by doing that. Unless we are doing that we do not discourage homosexuality, we do not reduce it to any extent. We merely, by the capricious way in which the law operates, ruin the lives of a relatively small number of homosexuals by subjecting them in a quite irrational and arbitrary way to the terrifying penalties of the law, terrifying not because of the criminal penalties, but because of the ruinous consequences, of which blackmail is one, but only one, which accompany this.

Sir S. McAdden: If the right hon. Gentleman feels so strongly, why on earth does he not introduce a Bill to deal with it?

Mr. Jenkins: I thought that I had dealt with the hon. Member's point. I may not have done so to the satisfaction of the hon. Member, but I doubt whether I shall succeed in dealing with any point raised in this House to the satisfaction of the hon. Member. I thought that I had deployed to the House a case and that most Members were prepared to accept, whatever their views—and there are deeply held views on this subject—that this was pre-eminently a subject for decision by individual conscience.

Captain W. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that the law does not discourage homosexuality. I think that he will agree that in the Wolfenden Report it quite clearly says that if naval discipline and the Army Act and so forth were changed, it would lead to an increase in the Services. Service men are exactly the same as civilians, except that they wear uniform. Why does the right hon. Gentleman make this distinction between civilians and Service men?

Mr. Jenkins: Because it is probably desirable in this law which we are considering to deal with the generality of the problem, as it applies to civilians. If there are special problems in relation to Servicemen, then let the Services stand aside and be dealt with under naval and military discipline Acts. Furthermore, the position is very much the same as


for that raised by my hon. Friend. If hon. Members wish their arguments to be taken seriously, and I am sure that they do, they must not try to have it both ways. They must not first of all raise the claim that there is a special problem, and as soon as anyone makes an attempt to meet that special problem, turn round and say, "Ah, but the fact that it is admitted that there is a special problem proves that your case must be wrong."

Captain W. Elliot: I certainly do not argue that there is a special problem. I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is a special problem. He is differentiating between the Services and the civilian.

Mr. Jenkins: If this is so I do not know why the hon. Gentleman devoted a very large part of his speech, of some considerable length, to talking almost entirely about the Services, which is a tiny proportion of the total, and not to the general problems.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is wrong in saying that the Wolfenden Report said there would be an increase in the Services if this reform is brought in. Section 144 of the Report merely said that there might be problems of discipline and made no suggestion that there would be any increase in the Services.

Mr. Jenkins: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was so busy dealing with what appeared to be the fallaciousness of the argument that I overlooked the fallaciousness of the fact. I do not wish to detain the House for more than a moment or so longer.
The essential feature of the law, in so far as we need a law on this subject, should be to penalise public indecency and the corruption of minors. I believe that that is fully safeguarded by the Bill as it is put forward. On both these points, my hon. Friend's Bill is specific and unequivocal. Penalties for the corruption of minors are increased. So long as the House is satisfied on these points, and I can see no reason why it should not be, it is right to leave the difficult, often distasteful problem of homosexuality to private morals and to the judg-

ment of individual conscience and not to the full rigours of the criminal law.
This is a difficult issue and one which has perplexed the House for many years. It is right that the House should take a decision tonight on a free vote, and I do not think that it will have a better opportunity or a clearer Bill on which to do it.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: At one moment during his speech, I was afraid that the Home Secretary was taking a look at the far distant future and foreshadowing legislation of which not many of us would approve until I realised that he had merely made a slip of the tongue.
The right hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have joined in the general praise for the moderation and restraint of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in introducing the Bill, and I should like to add my support to that proposition. I was also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his mention of the way in which my former hon. Friend, Mr. Humphry Berkeley, also introduced an identical Bill a very short time ago.
I, I am sorry to admit, also spoke on that occasion and I wondered, because it was a very short time ago, whether I should inflict another speech on this subject on the House. I was strengthened by two thoughts. The first was that there are, I think, 92 hon. Members who were not hon. Members 10 months ago, and that is one-seventh of our total number. The other thought was that I hoped that the approach of the Christmas season would lead the other six-sevenths to be more than usually tolerant if, as is almost inevitable, I am guilty of tedious repetition.
The terms of the hon. Member's Bill are the same as those of Mr. Humphry Berkeley's Bill. Although it deals with other matters and although a number of substantial points have arisen in the course of our debate tonight, the most important question that we have to decide is whether a homosexual act committed in private between two consenting men over the age of 21 should or should not continue to be an offence.
The reasoned Amendment for rejection, which has been supported by a number of hon. Members, certainly deserves the close attention which the hon. Member for Pontypool promised to give it. I naturally cannot possibly improve on the undertaking that he gave, but I am confident, like him, that the omission referred to in the Motion can be repaired and I am wholeheartedly in support of his objective that merchant seamen should be brought into exactly the same position as—no worse and no better than—naval ratings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), in what, I am sure, he will forgive me for calling a courageous and honest speech, happened to level some criticism, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), that the Government have found time for discussion of the Bill. Contrary to my usual sentiments, I have some sympathy with the Government. When the Bill was last debated, it was considered, in the words of one hon. Member, to be too grave a social problem to be discussed on a Friday afternoon when most hon. Members were absent. In the debate in February, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in a characteristically forthright speech, deplored the absence because of their sensible retirement to Scotland for the week-end of
the good Scottish Socialist Calvinistic M.P.s".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 833.]
He suggested on that occasion that if the debate were held on a weekday, and I imagine that in Parliamentary terms a Monday is more a weekday than is a Friday, the presence of those M.P.'s would make a difference. I have been looking around me during the debate and I see a number of Scottish Socialist Members present. I do not know them well enough to know their theological opinions or whether they are followers of Calvin or not. We will soon discover whether their presence makes a difference.
Much attention has been paid tonight to what I believe is the most profound and important distinction between the homosexual condition and its manifestation through overt homosexual practices, and the incidence of a condition which we all agree is no more a crime than the incidence of any other propensity

which we may have. The condition is not only not an offence against the law; it is normally neutral, properly attracting neither condemnation nor condonation.
Whatever our natural propensities, sexual or otherwise, we are left with the choice, either to give them free rein or to bring them or keep them under partial or complete control. The degree of freedom which we allow them is a matter not only of moral significance. It is also, in some cases but by no means all—and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) made this point clearly—a matter of concern to the law.
In sex, so long as a man is fortunate enough to be attracted to women and not to men, he can go far beyond the code of morality preached by any church and the law will be almost completely silent. There is no penalty for adultery except, of course, divorce, which for many adulterers is more a reward than a punishment. Nor is there any legal penalty for fornication provided that neither participant is less than 16. Even more significant in this context, homosexual behaviour between women is not illegal. The law, although morality less so, allows wide freedom to the heterosexual and it allows this for two good reasons. The first, which has been mentioned frequently during the debate, is the impossibility of enforcing a law against sexual misbehaviour. The second, mentioned less frequently, but which is more important, is that the more misbehaviour we bring or keep within the ambit of the criminal law the more we diminish the total moral responsibility borne by each individual.
This brings me at long last to the Wolfenden Report. In the debate in February I quoted paragraph 52 and I will do so again tonight. It says:
We do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with what a man does in private unless it can be shown to he so contrary to the public good that the law ought to intervene in its function as the guardian of that public good.
The question which we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a case that the law should deal with private homosexual acts between men so differently from those between women, and men and women who are not married to one another. There are two grounds on


which such a case can possibly be offered. The first has been mentioned by several hon. Members and that is that homosexual practices menace the health of society and disrupt family life.
I happen to believe that this simple proposition is generally true. I believe that all great moral lapses in a society—and this is certainly one—make that society less healthy than it would otherwise be, and many of us know from experience, and have quoted it tonight, of families which have been disrupted by homosexual behaviour, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central, I have for long been convinced that other sexual misbehaviour is a far more serious menace to the health of family life and to society.
Nothing, for instance, is so menacing as the deliberate intention of a man or a woman to destroy the unity of another family which would otherwise have happily continued. Because of its disruptive consequences, there may be a strong case for introducing legal penalties for adultery, but I doubt whether many of us would think that a wise or practical course to take.
If, therefore, we shrink from prohibiting sexual misbehaviour which is comparatively more disruptive of family life, this seems to be a very slender reason for maintaining the legal penalties for private homosexual behaviour whose power to destroy a family circle, although it exists, is comparatively small.
I am potentially more impressed by the other main argument which has been powerfully advanced by one or two hon. Members this evening, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, because I know that this argument is based on the sincere conviction of a number of people whose views I greatly respect. The argument runs like this, that if Parliament were to remove the penalties which are at present attached to homosexual offences committed by men in private, this would be taken to imply the tacit approval of society for this practice. That is the argument, and, furthermore those who put it forward genuinely fear that society's implied approval will lead to an opening of the flood gates and to a wild orgy of vice.
This clearly must be a matter of opinion. I believe that the argument is based on a false premise. I do not think that action by Parliament to treat these offences in the same way as other private sexual misbehaviour will be interpreted as approval for them. I believe that very few people hold what in the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) described as the
over-simplified view that those actions which the law … does not condemn and punish are right, or at any rate not very seriously wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 800.]
I do not believe that many people take that view. Therefore, whether or not homosexual offences remain grounds for criminal action will not greatly affect public judgment on them.
I do not know whether anyone knows, but I believe that the majority of public opinion would like to see a change in the law. I am equally certain that the majority of public opinion, whether or not the law is changed, will continue to disapprove of the acts themselves, and while this is so, while this disapproval continues, I believe that we are unlikely to see the orgy of vice which some fear as a result of the Bill.
The debate tonight is not concerned with approval or disapproval of homosexual practices. If any hon. Member were to introduce a Bill on these lines I believe that for as far ahead as we can see he would be overwhelmingly defeated. But this is not the issue. The issue, as I put it in February, and perhaps the House will let me put it again, is whether or not homosexual behaviour in private between consenting men should be within the same area of private moral choice and judgment which a man or a woman exercises when he or she commits or refrains from committing adultery or fornication. I believe strongly that it should, and therefore I hope that the House will agree to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Committee Tomorrow.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.